Duran Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
21
ORDER Granting 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying 15 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for a calculation of benefits. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 10/29/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Social Security)(rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SANDRA DURAN MENDEZ,
Case No. 3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
v.
15
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
I. INTRODUCTION
20
On May 4, 2008, Plaintiff Sandra Duran Mendez filed an application for a period of
21
disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging
22
disability since April 1, 2008. (Tr. 129.) Plaintiff’s application was denied initially and on
23
reconsideration. (Tr. 14.) Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing, and on May 18, 2010, Plaintiff
24
testified at the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Norman R. Buls (the “ALJ”). On
25
June 8, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying benefits. Plaintiff filed a request for review
26
with the Appeals Council, which was denied. (Tr. 1-3.) The ALJ’s decision then became the
27
Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action,
28
seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
1
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
Plaintiff and Defendant have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. For the
2
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED and Defendant's motion is DENIED.
3
4
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5
Plaintiff was born on March 25, 1964. (Tr. 129.) Between April 1984 and January
6
1998, Plaintiff served as an Inventory Management Craftsman in the Air Force, a job that
7
required her to physically move objects during the day, sometimes with the use of a
8
machine. (Tr. 120-21.) While on active duty, Plaintiff suffered a back injury from playing
9
racquetball in 1985, and has since complained of pain in her lower back. (Tr. 561-62.) In
10
1992, Plaintiff first experienced symptoms of fibromyalgia1 and was later diagnosed with
11
fibromyalgia in February 1996. (Tr. 425, 543.) In 1998, Plaintiff was honorably
12
discharged from the Air Force for failing to control her weight. (Tr. 108.)
13
After her discharge from the Air Force, Plaintiff worked as a car salesman,
14
material coordinator, purchasing superintendent, and substitute teacher. (Tr. 120.)
15
Plaintiff has a high school diploma and a four-year college degree. (Tr. 66.) Plaintiff
16
alleged disability beginning April 1, 2008, due to pain from fibromyalgia, carpal tunnel
17
syndrome, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, an old back injury, hypothyroid, and
18
depression. (Tr. 119.) Subsequent to Plaintiff’s alleged disability onset date of April 1,
19
2008, Plaintiff engaged in substantial gainful activity from April 1, 2008 to June 5, 2008.
20
(Tr. 16.) Plaintiff has not worked since June 5, 2008. (Id.)
21
//
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Fibromyalgia is a rheumatic disease that causes inflammation of the fibrous
connective tissue components of muscles, tendons, ligaments, and other tissue. Benecke
v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 589, 589 (9th Cir. 2004). The common symptoms of fibromyalgia are
“chronic pain throughout the body, multiple tender points, fatigue, stiffness, and a pattern of
sleep disturbance that can exacerbate the cycle of pain and fatigue associated with this
disease.” Id. at 589-90 (internal citations omitted). “[T]he only symptom that discriminates
between it and other diseases of a rheumatic character [is] multiple tender spots, more
precisely [eighteen] fixed locations on the body.” Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th
Cir. 1996). Claimants typically must have at least eleven positive trigger points to be
diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Id.
2
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
A.
Plaintiff’s Medical Treatment
Plaintiff has been treated at the Veteran Administration Medical Center since
1998. (Tr. 552.)
In 1998, Plaintiff was diagnosed with right-sided carpal tunnel syndrome and had
5
surgery on her right hand in 2002. (Tr. 225.) Although the surgery improved Plaintiff's
6
symptoms significantly, by 2006, Plaintiff's symptoms returned. (Tr. 226.)
7
On October 1, 2007, Plaintiff was referred to Eileen Apfel, a Registered
8
Occupational Therapist, with complaints of extreme pain in her right hand and difficulty
9
sleeping. (Tr. 290-91.) Ms. Apfel observed swelling in Plaintiff’s right wrist and noted
10
that Plaintiff was likely experiencing a fibromyalgic flare that irritated nerves in her right
11
arm. (Tr. 293.)
12
On January 24, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Sunita C. Baxi with complaints of
13
increased pain and fatigue. (Tr. 287, 289.) Dr. Baxi noted that Plaintiff appeared in pain
14
and demonstrated tenderness in trigger points. (Tr. 288.)
15
On February 11, 2008, Dr. Terkeltaub, the Section Chief of Rheumatology, noted
16
that upon physical examination, Plaintiff demonstrated trigger points in her right
17
trapezius, lumbar-sacral region, left medial fat pad on the knee, and right elbow . (Tr.
18
286.) Dr. Terkeltaub also noted that Plaintiff had non-restorative sleep and positive
19
tender points, which are compatible with primary fibromyalgia, and appeared in pain. (Tr.
20
285-86.)
21
On February 25, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Spencer Lin for a routine rheumatology
22
followup examination. Dr. Lin noted that Plaintiff showed positive trigger points in her
23
back and along her arms. (Tr. 282.)
24
On March 3, 2008, Dr. Kenneth C. Kalunian, a rheumatology staff physician,
25
examined Plaintiff and noted that Plaintiff had diffuse trigger points but no joint
26
tenderness in her hands or wrists. (Tr. 284.)
27
28
On March 17, 2008, Dr. Brian Greenberg, a rheumatology fellow, examined
Plaintiff and noted that Plaintiff demonstrated diffuse muscular tender points, which were
3
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
most pronounced in the right arm. (Tr. 278.)
2
On April 11, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Baxi with complaints of pain “all over,”
3
fatigue, difficulty sleeping, arthritis pain in the joints of both hands, and lower back pain.
4
(Tr. 273-74.)
5
On April 21, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Nipaporn Pichetshote for a followup
6
rheumatology examination. Dr. Pichetshote noted Plaintiff demonstrated “TTP in all
7
tender spots” including chest, bilateral arms, back, hip, and knees and that Plaintiff
8
“recoiled with palpitation.” (Tr. 272.) Dr. Pichetshote also noted that Plaintiff appeared
9
depressed and therefore started Plaintiff on Prozac. (Tr. 273.)
10
On May 27, 2008, Plaintiff visited Michelle R. Amos, a Licensed Clinical Social
11
Worker, complaining of increased fibromyalgia as well as depression symptoms. (Tr.
12
265.) Plaintiff was referred to Dr. Christine Y. Moutier for a psychiatry consultation. (Tr.
13
263.)
14
On June 23, 2008, Dr. Moutier noted that Plaintiff showed cognitive symptoms of
15
depression including poor memory, attention, and ability to focus, as well as low
16
motivation, energy, sleep disruption, and negative self-image. (Tr. 257.) Dr. Moutier
17
observed that Plaintiff was “clearly uncomfortable and in pain at times with apparent ms
18
spasms.” (Tr. 258.)
19
On June 22, 2008, Plaintiff saw Dr. Valette for an extended psychological
20
consultation conducted for the Department of Social Services, Disability Evaluation
21
Department. (Tr. 194.) Dr. Valette observed Plaintiff’s mood as being “slightly dysthymic”
22
and noted Plaintiff’s difficulties related primarily to physical problems. (Tr. 195.) Dr.
23
Valette also remarked that with proper medical treatment for her dysthymia, Plaintiff may
24
be able to function at a higher level. (Tr. 195.) Dr. Valette concluded that Plaintiff had
25
slight limitations due to dysthymia on her ability to complete complex tasks and her ability
26
to concentrate for at least two-hour increments at a time. (Id.)
27
//
28
//
4
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
On June 29, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Jeannette Del Valle, a Board Certified
Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, for a physical evaluation conducted for the Department
of Social Services, Disability Evaluation Department. (Tr. 197-99.) Dr. Del Valle found
that Plaintiff was reliable (Tr. 197) and observed that Plaintiff moved about the office
5
without help. (Tr. 198.) Dr. Del Valle noted that Plaintiff demonstrated a full range of
6
motion, no tenderness to palpations in her back, shoulders, hands, wrists, or knees, and
7
no spasms in her back. (Id.) Based on physical examination and observation, Dr. Del
8
Valle concluded that Plaintiff had no physical functional limitations. (Tr. 199.)
9
On July 2, 2008, Dr. H. Skopec conducted a psychiatric review technique. (Tr.
10
200.) Based on a review of Plaintiff’s medical records, Dr. Skopec opined that Plaintiff
11
had a mood disorder (Tr. 203) and that her impairment was not severe. (Tr. 200.)
12
Beginning on July 2, 2008, Plaintiff attended Acceptance Based Group for Chronic
13
Pain, a six-session group therapy under the direction of Dr. Jill Stoddard, a clinical
14
psychologist. (Tr. 256.) In sessions one and two, Dr. Stoddard noted that Plaintiff’s mood
15
was “mildly dysphoric with congruent affect.” (Id.) In sessions three, four, five, and six,
16
Dr. Stoddard noted that Plaintiff’s mood was “euthymic with congruent affect.” (Tr. 250-
17
52, 255.)
18
On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff visited Dr. Terkeltaub, who noted that Plaintiff had
19
fibromyalgia and clinical depression. (Tr. 253.) In his treatment notes, Dr. Terkeltaub
20
remarked that Plaintiff felt dizzy and drowsy from the drug combination of Prozac, Elavil,
21
and Lyrica. Dr. Terkeltaub also noted that although Plaintiff's fibromyalgia symptoms
22
have improved substantially on this low dose of Lyrica, she still experienced pain in her
23
right arm and that Plaintiff “still has widespread tender points in stereotypic locations for
24
fibromyalgia.” (Id.)
25
On July 29 and 30, 2008, Plaintiff was tested for sleep apnea in the sleep clinic
26
(Tr. 174) and was diagnosed with moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. (Tr. 248.)
27
Plaintiff began a trial of Auto-CPAP, a sleep aid machine. (Id.)
28
//
5
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
On October 10, 2008, Dr. Kalunian noted that upon physical examination, Plaintiff
demonstrated positive tender points. (Tr. 243.) Dr. Kalunian also noted that Plaintiff was
sleeping better and tolerating pain better on Lyrica but still woke up multiple times a night.
Dr. Kalunian also remarked that Plaintiff felt “foggy” since starting Lyrica, (Tr. 241-43.)
On November 13, 2008, Dr. Moutier noted that Plaintiff still felt foggy, groggy, and
was experiencing memory problems. (Tr. 236.) Dr. Moutier also noted that she discussed
Plaintiff's medicine combination and side effects with Dr. Terkeltaub. (Id.)
On December 15, 2008, Dr. Moutier noted that Plaintiff was “doing well from a
depression standpoint with improvement in motivation, mood, and interest.” (Tr. 234.)
Dr. Moutier also remarked that after Plaintiff had been off Lyrica for two weeks, Plaintiff
felt less confused and experienced less problems with her memory, but Plaintiff's pain
had “worsened significantly.” (Id.)
13
On December 18, 2008, Dr. Terkeltaub observed that due to Plaintiff’s medication,
14
15
she was suffering from “mental fogginess” and higher levels of pain. (Tr. 254.)
On December 31, 2008, Dr. Ross conducted a physical residual functional
16
capacity assessment. (Tr. 303.) After reviewing Plaintiff’s medical records, Dr. Ross
17
18
19
20
21
concluded that Plaintiff could occasionally and frequently lift and carry ten pounds; stand
or walk at least two hours in an eight-hour workday; sit for a total of about six hours in an
eight-hour workday; push or pull for an unlimited amount; occasionally climb ramps,
stairs, ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and never
22
balance; avoid even moderate exposure to extreme cold, extreme heat, or vibration; and
23
avoid all exposure to hazards such as machinery and heights. (Tr. 304-06.) Dr. Ross
24
opined that Plaintiff has no manipulative, visual, or communication limitations. (Tr. 305.)
25
Regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms, Dr. Ross concluded Plaintiff’s
26
pain was the major issue. However, Dr. Ross found that Plaintiff’s only tally of actual
27
classic trigger points shows four of eighteen and that joints do not show synotvitis or
28
deformity. (Tr. 307.) Finally, Dr. Ross concluded that Plaintiff had credibility issues
6
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
because in his opinion, the medical reports do not support Plaintiff’s claims of disability to
the extent portrayed to the Social Security Administration. (Tr. 307.)
3
On January 12, 2009, Dr. Terkeltaub examined Plaintiff and opined that Plaintiff
4
had eighteen of eighteen fibromyalgia tender points. (Tr. 391.)
5
On February 23, 2009, Dr. Terkeltaub examined Plaintiff and concluded Plaintiff
6
7
still demonstrated greater than ten of eighteen tender points. (Tr. 387.)
On March 23, 2009, Dr. Moutier observed that Plaintiff feels awake, alert, and
8
9
10
11
positive most days, unless she has a poor sleep the night before. Additionally, Dr.
Moutier noted that Plaintiff rates the pain as “4/10” that worsens during the course of
each day. (Tr. 384.)
On May 11, 2009, Dr. Moutier noted that Plaintiff was feeling “moderately
12
13
14
improved” and that Plaintiff's depression was “well-controlled.” (Tr. 373.) Dr. Moutier
also remarked that Plaintiff's pain was the main focus of her treatment. (Id.)
On May 18, 2009, Dr. Terkeltaub noted that Plaintiff’s pain had decreased to a
15
16
17
18
19
four or five rating, but Plaintiff was still experiencing deep aching. (Tr. 371-72.) Dr.
Terkeltaub also observed Plaintiff looked much better and moved more briskly into her
chair in the clinic, but she still showed greater than ten of eighteen stereotypic tender
points for fibromyalgia, although less tender. (Id.)
On June 17, 2009, Dr. Moutier noted that while Plaintiff’s pain had improved most
20
21
of the time, her mood was “much worse,” and she was unable to visit her mother. (Tr.
22
366.)
23
On August 10, 2009, Dr. Moutier noted that Plaintiff experienced “significant
24
improvements” in energy, motivation, and interests such as the ability to cook and see
25
family. (Tr. 360.) Dr. Moutier remarked that Plaintiff also experienced an increase in pain
26
from being more active. (Id.)
27
28
On September 14, 2009, Dr. Terkeltaub noted that Plaintiff was sleeping better
and was tolerating the medication well for her depression and fibromyalgia. (Tr. 355.) Dr.
7
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
Terkeltaub also noted Plaintiff's pain level was variable and that “all her tender points are
less better.” (Tr. 355-56.)
3
4
5
6
7
8
On December 2, 2009, Dr. Benjamin R. Dishman noted that since taking Ritalin,
Plaintiff had become more active, including babysitting, reading, watching TV, working on
the internet, and playing solitaire and that her sleep and motivation had improved. (Tr.
349.) Dr. Dishman, however, also noted that Plaintiff’s energy level was difficult to rate
due to the increased use of Tramadol for Plaintiff’s increased pain, and that her pain was
still keeping Plaintiff from activities. (Id.)
9
10
11
12
In a letter dated February 8, 2010, Dr. Moutier opined that after almost two years
of treatment, Plaintiff was completely disabled due to her diagnosed Major Depressive
Disorder, Fibromyalgia, and a number of other medical problems. (Tr. 314.) Dr. Moutier
explained:
13
Ms. Mendez was able to work until June 2008 as a substitute
teacher, but had been struggling to manage increasing physical pain related
to Fibromyalgia and Osteoarthritis over the year prior to her stopping
working. By the time she stopped working, she was experiencing severe,
unremitting physical pain, and her Major Depressive Disorder had begun as
well. Ms. Mendez is a person with a high level of personal attribute that
would lead her to work hard and take pride in her work, were it at all
possible for her to work. . . .
While her treatment plan has been aggressive and she has been
100% compliant with treatment, the treatment has only proven partially
effective thus far at resolving her symptoms, leaving her in a completely
disabled state.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(Id.) Dr. Moutier concluded that Plaintiff was truly disabled from physical pain and
21
depressive symptoms due to Fibromyalgia, other pain conditions, and Major Depressive
22
Disorder. (Id.)
23
24
25
B.
Plaintiff’s Testimony at the ALJ hearing
During the ALJ hearing on May 18, 2010, Plaintiff contended that her fibromyalgia
26
symptoms – pain in her legs, hips, back, arm, and chest as well as muscle spasms,
27
swollen joints, and shooting pains in her chest – prevented her from working as a
28
substitute teacher. (Tr. 75-77.) Plaintiff testified that although she was diagnosed with
8
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
5
fibromyalgia in 1996, her symptoms began to worsen around October 2007 so that by
June 2008, she could no longer manage the pain from her fibromyalgia, back injury, and
arthritis. (Tr. 67, 72.) According to Plaintiff, she is only able to sit for fifteen to twenty
minutes at a time due to the pain, and her medication causes difficulty with memory and
concentration. (Tr. 76-78).
6
7
III. ALJ’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
8
The ALJ found that Plaintiff met the requirements for disability insurance benefits
9
through December 31, 2012.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following medically determinable “severe”
impairments: fibromyalgia; mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine at L3-4
and moderate degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine at L4-5; minimal
osteoarthritis of the right hip and minimal osteoarthritis of bilateral sacroiliac joints;
moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome with mild desaturation; and obesity with a
body mass index (BMI) of 36.3 at the time of the hearing. (Tr. 16-17.)
The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s medically determinable mental impairment of
depression was “nonsevere” because it does not cause more than minimal limitation in
Plaintiff’s ability to perform basic mental work activities. The ALJ considered the four
broad functional areas and found Plaintiff has: (1) a mild limitation in activities of daily
living due to back pain and fibromyalgia; (2) no limitations in social functioning; (3) no
limitations regarding concentration, persistence, or pace; and (4) no episodes of
extended periods of decompensation. (Tr. 17.)
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s impairment or combination of impairments do
not meet or equal one of the impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
The ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform
sedentary work, with the following nonexertional limitations: never climbing ladders, ropes
or scaffolds; occasionally climbing ramps and stairs; occasionally balancing, stooping,
9
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
and kneeling; occasionally crouching and crawling; avoiding moderate exposure to
extreme heat and extreme cold; avoiding vibration; avoiding all exposure to machinery
and heights.
4
5
6
7
8
9
The ALJ found that Plaintiff is unable to perform any past relevant work.
Considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,
however, the ALJ found that Plaintiff can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in
the national economy. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff has not been under a
“disability” as defined in the Social Security Act, from April 1, 2008, through the date of
the ALJ’s decision.2
10
11
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
12
The Commissioner’s denial of benefits may be set aside if it is based on legal error
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
or is not supported by substantial evidence. Jamerson v. Chater, 112 F.3d 1064, 1066
(9th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla but less than a
preponderance. Id. Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence which, considering the
record as a whole, a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Flaten v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.
1995).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Under the Social Security Regulations, the determination of whether a claimant is
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act is a five-step process. The five steps
are as follows: (1) Is the claimant presently working in any substantially gainful activity? If
so, then the claimant is not disabled. If not, then the evaluation proceeds to step two. (2)
Is the claimant’s impairment severe? If not, then the claimant is not disabled. If so, then the
evaluation proceeds to step three. (3) Does the impairment “meet or equal” one of a list of
specific impairments set forth in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404? If so, then the
claimant is disabled. If not, then the evaluation proceeds to step four. (4) Is the claimant
able to do any work that she has done in the past? If so, then the claimant is not disabled.
If not, then the evaluation proceeds to step five. (5) Is the claimant able to do any other
work? If not, then the claimant is disabled. If, on the other hand, the Commissioner can
establish that there are a significant number of jobs in the national economy that the
claimant can do, the claimant is not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. See also Tackett v.
Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 1999).
10
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
V. DISCUSSION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff contends the ALJ’s decision was erroneous because the ALJ (1) failed to
give proper weight to or provide sufficient reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s treating
physicians’ opinions; (2) failed to provide sufficient reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s pain
testimony; (3) failed to give proper weight to Plaintiff’s Veteran Administration (VA)
disability rating; (4) failed to give proper consideration to Plaintiff’s combination of
impairments under the Listing;3 and (5) failed to properly assess Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity. In reviewing the record as a whole, the Court agrees.
9
10
A.
Treating Physicians’ Opinions
11
12
13
14
The ALJ gave substantial weight to Dr. Ross's opinion and gave little weight to the
opinions of Drs. Del Valle,4 Moutier, and Rousseau.5 (Tr. 20-21.) Plaintiff contends that
the ALJ erred in giving substantial weight to the opinion of Dr. Ross, a non-treating and
15
non-examining physician. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to
16
the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, Drs. Moutier and Terkeltaub. The Court
17
agrees.
18
19
20
21
22
23
3
As discussed below, after crediting the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians and
Plaintiff’s pain testimony, the Court finds that Plaintiff is disabled. Accordingly, the Court
need not reach the issue of whether Plaintiff’s combination of impairments equal an
impairment under the Listing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1525(c)(5). (“If your impairment(s) does
not meet or medically equal the criteria of a listing, we may find that you are disabled or still
disabled at a later step in the sequential evaluation process.”).
4
24
Plaintiff does not challenge the weight that the ALJ gave to Dr. Del Valle’s opinion.
5
25
26
27
28
In weighing the doctors’ opinions, the ALJ found that “Dr. Rosseau’s assessment
was not supported by her own clinical analysis of claimant and is generally inconsistent with
the balance of the medical record.” (Tr. 21.) After extensive review of the record, neither
the Court nor Defendant can find any evidence that Plaintiff was treated or evaluated by Dr.
Rousseau. (See ECF No. 15 at 9 n.6.) Defendant asserts that the ALJ’s reference to “Dr.
Rousseau” is a clerical error and that the ALJ was referring to Dr. Moutier’s opinion. (Id.)
Because Plaintiff had visited numerous physicians, it is unclear if the ALJ was in fact
referring to Dr. Moutier. Accordingly, the Court declines to treat the ALJ’s reference to “Dr.
Rousseau” as simply a clerical error intended to refer to Dr. Moutier.
11
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
There are three types of medical opinions – treating physicians, examining
2
3
4
physicians, and non-examining physicians – and each type is accorded different weight.
See Valentine v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692 (9th Cir. 2009). As a
5
general matter, opinions of treating physicians are given controlling weight when
6
supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and when not inconsistent with
7
other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p.
8
Where a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may not
9
reject the treating physician’s opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons”
10
11
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725
12
(9th Cir. 1990). In doing so, the ALJ must do more than proffer his own conclusions – he
13
must set forth his own interpretations and why they are superior to that of the treating
14
physician’s. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988). The ALJ may meet
15
this burden by conducting a detailed and thorough discussion of the facts and conflicting
16
17
evidence, and by explaining his interpretations and findings. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881
F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).
18
19
Even if the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with other substantial
20
evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinions are still entitled to deference and
21
must be weighted using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Holohan v.
22
Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 96-2p. These factors include, inter
23
alia, the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship” between the patient and treating
24
physician, the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” the
25
26
27
28
amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation
provided, and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).
12
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
1. Dr. Ross’s Opinion
2
The ALJ provided two reasons for giving substantial weight to Dr. Ross’s opinion.
3
4
First, the ALJ noted that Dr. Ross’s opinion was based on “physical examinations of
5
claimant, his observations of her condition and claimant’s statements as to her activities
6
of daily living.” (Tr. 20.) Second, the ALJ remarked that Dr. Ross’s opinion was
7
consistent with the balance of the medical record. (Id.)
8
First, it appears that the ALJ relied upon Dr. Ross’s opinion as an examining
9
physician, but there is nothing in the record indicating Dr. Ross physically examined or
10
11
observed Plaintiff. (See Tr. 303-13.) In his Medical Consultant Response dated
12
November 13, 2008, Dr. Ross remarked “file reviewed” but did not include any notes
13
based on a physical examination of Plaintiff. (See Tr. 311-12.) In another Medical
14
Consultant Response dated December 24, 2008, Dr. Ross remarked “Newly acquired
15
MER reviewed,” but again his records do not indicate that he physically examined or
16
observed Plaintiff. (See Tr. 312.)
17
Second, the Court disagrees that Dr. Ross’s opinion was consistent with the
18
19
balance of the medical record as a whole. Dr. Ross submitted his report in December
20
2008, over a year before the ALJ hearing on May 18, 2010. Dr. Ross did not review all of
21
Plaintiff’s medical records and therefore did not have the benefit of knowing that Plaintiff
22
demonstrated positive fibromyalgia trigger points, including eighteen of eighteen on
23
24
January 12, 2009 (Tr. 291) and greater than ten of eighteen on February 23, 2009 (Tr.
387) and May 18, 2009 (Tr. 372). Further, Dr. Ross did not have the benefit of reviewing
25
26
the assessment of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Moutier, regarding Plaintiff’s physical
27
capabilities. (See Tr. 307, 314.)
28
//
13
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ erred in giving substantial weight to Dr. Ross’s
2
3
opinion.
4
5
2. Dr. Moutier
6
The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Moutier’s opinion that Plaintiff is completely
7
8
disabled. (Tr. 21.) The ALJ found that based on Dr. Moutier’s own treatment notes,
Plaintiff showed improvement after treatment and finding the appropriate medication and
9
10
11
dosages. (Id.) However, Dr. Moutier’s treatment notes, the same ones referenced by the
ALJ, suggest Plaintiff was both improving6 and declining during treatment. The Court
12
highlights that in the same entry as Dr. Moutier observed improvements in Plaintiff’s
13
depression, Dr. Moutier also observed that Plaintiff’s pain had “worsened significantly.”
14
(Tr. 234.) Additionally, on February 9, 2009, Dr. Moutier noted that while Plaintiff was
15
socializing more with family, her depression symptoms had “worsened moderately” and
16
she was experiencing sharper pain. (Tr. 388.) Dr. Moutier also noted on May 18, 2009,
17
18
19
20
that pain was the focus of Plaintiff’s treatment (Tr. 373) and by June 17, 2009, Plaintiff
was unable to visit her mother (Tr. 366).
In a letter dated February 8, 2010, Dr. Moutier concluded that “while her treatment
21
plan has been aggressive and she has been 100% compliant with treatment, the
22
treatment has only proven partially effective thus far at resolving her symptoms, leaving
23
her in a completely disabled state.” Despite his duty to conduct a detailed analysis of
24
25
26
27
28
6
The ALJ noted that Plaintiff made “considerable progress over the course of
treatment” by accepting substitute teaching jobs again. (Tr. 20.) Although this statement is
based on an entry by Dr. Stoddard (Tr. 249), the ALJ found that Plaintiff has no posted work
after June 5, 2008. (Tr. 16.)
14
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
conflicting evidence, the ALJ did not review Dr. Moutier’s February 2010 opinion and
2
3
4
offered no reasons for ignoring or rejecting the assessment. (See Tr. 21.)
The Court finds the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons for
5
rejecting the opinion of Dr. Moutier, Plaintiff’s treating physician. Accordingly, the Court
6
credits Dr. Moutier’s opinion as a matter of law. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834
7
(9th Cir. 1995) (“Where the Commissioner fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting
8
9
the opinion of a treating or examining physician, we credit that opinion ‘as a matter of
law.’”) (citing Hammock v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.1989)).
10
11
12
3. Dr. Terkeltaub
13
Dr. Terkeltaub has been Plaintiff’s treating rheumatologist7 since February 2008,
14
15
16
and has treated Plaintiff various times, including February 11, 2008 (Tr. 286), July 21,
2008 (Tr. 253), December 18, 2008 (Tr. 254), January 12, 2009 (Tr. 391), February 23,
2009 (Tr. 387), May 18, 2009 (Tr. 371), and September 14, 2009 (Tr. 355). The ALJ did
17
18
19
20
not give any weight to Dr. Terkeltaub’s opinion that Plaintiff tested positive for
fibromyalgia trigger points, including eighteen of eighteen. (See Tr. 20-21, 286.)
The ALJ referenced Dr. Terkeltaub’s opinion only once in the context of Plaintiff’s
21
credibility regarding pain intensity. The ALJ commented that “Dr. Terkeltaub noted in
22
September 2009 that claimant had been sleeping better on CPAP, she [sic] tolerating
23
depression and fibromyalgia well on medication, and she showed improvement while all
24
25
her tender points are better.” (Tr. 19.) The ALJ, however, omitted an essential word. In
26
27
28
7
Plaintiff has also been treated by various other rheumatalogists in the VA Medical
Center’s rheumatology clinic, including Dr. Lin (Tr. 282), Dr. Kalunian (Tr. 284, 243), Dr.
Greenberg (Tr. 278), and Dr. Pichetshote (Tr. 272). The ALJ did not give weight to any
rheumatologists’ opinion. (See Tr. 20-21.)
15
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
his treatment notes dated September 14, 2009, Dr. Terkeltaub noted “all her tender
2
3
4
5
points are less better,” indicating Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms were not improving.
(See Tr. 356.) Although Dr. Terkeltaub’s use of the phrase “less better” may be unclear,
the ALJ cannot rely on this treatment note to show Plaintiff was improving.
6
Accordingly, the ALJ erred in failing to provide specific and legitimate reasons for
7
ignoring the opinion of Dr. Terkeltaub, Plaintiff’s treating rheumotologist. See Benecke,
8
9
379 F.3d at 594 n.4 (noting that because rheumatology is the relevant specialty for
fibromyalgia, a rheumatologist’s opinion should be given greater weight than those of the
10
11
other physicians).
In sum, the ALJ erred in giving substantial weight to Dr. Ross because there is no
12
13
indication in the record that Dr. Ross physically examined the Plaintiff, and Dr. Ross did
14
not review all the pertinent medical records. Further, the ALJ erred in failing to provide
15
specific and legitimate reasons for giving little weight to the assessment of Dr. Moutier
16
and for ignoring the opinion of Dr. Terkeltaub. Accordingly, the opinions of Drs. Moutier
17
18
and Terkeltaub are entitled to controlling weight.
19
20
21
22
23
B.
Plaintiff’s Pain Testimony
Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the
intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not credible because the
ALJ did not consider the record as a whole.
24
25
Once the claimant produces evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may
26
not discredit the testimony as to the severity of the pain merely because it is unsupported
27
by objective medical evidence. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1991) (en
28
banc). The ALJ must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting the claimant’s
16
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
testimony unless there is affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering. Swenson
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
v. Sullivan, 876 F.2d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ also must identify what testimony
is not credible and what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints. Lester, 81 F.3d
at 834.
The ALJ provided four reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony as to the intensity,
persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. First, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had
not sought significant treatment for her alleged back pain. (Tr. 19.) Second, the ALJ
remarked that Plaintiff had been treated for fibromyalgia since 1996 but remained in the
10
11
military until 1998. (Id.) Third, the ALJ noted that in March 2008, Plaintiff showed diffuse
12
trigger points but no joint tenderness in hands or wrists. (Id.) Fourth, the ALJ found that
13
Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia condition showed improvement throughout 2008 and 2009. (Id.)
14
The ALJ remarked that by July 2008, although she still reported pain, Plaintiff’s
15
fibromyalgia symptoms had improved substantially on a low dose of Lyrica; by March
16
2009, Plaintiff rated her pain at 4/10 that worsens during the day and felt no pain on
17
some days; by July 2009, Plaintiff’s sleep, appetite, and activity level had improved; by
18
19
August 2009, Plaintiff was cooking and seeing her family again; and by September 2009,
20
according to the ALJ, Plaintiff was “sleeping better on CPAP, she [sic] tolerating
21
depression and fibromyalgia well on medication, and she showed improvement while all
22
her tender points are better.” (Id.)
23
24
As to the ALJ’s first reason, although Plaintiff’s back injury may contribute to her
pain, Plaintiff’s primary source of pain appears to be her fibromyalgia. (See Tr. 373, 399.)
25
26
Second, it is unclear why the ALJ discredited Plaintiff’s pain testimony on the
27
ground that Plaintiff remained in the military after being diagnosed with fibromyalgia.
28
Prior to 2008, Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia did not interfere with her ability to work. After
17
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
Plaintiff’s separation from the military, Plaintiff worked as a material coordinator,
2
3
4
purchasing superintendent, and car salesperson and only missed one or two days of
work a month. (Tr. 228.) During this time, Plaintiff managed any pain or discomfort by
5
taking medication, usually Baclofen or Tramadol. (Id.) Beginning approximately October
6
2007, however, Plaintiff’s pain increased despite medical therapy and medication until
7
she could no longer manage the pain. (Tr. 67-72, 284.)
8
9
Third, Dr. Kalunian’s March 2008 treatment notes do not warrant rejecting
Plaintiff’s credibility. (Tr. 19.) On October 10, 2008, Dr. Kalunian performed a joint exam
10
11
and noted positive tender points. (Tr. 243.) Further, Plaintiff demonstrated positive
12
fibromyalgia trigger points on January 12, 2009 (Tr. 391), February 23, 2009 (Tr. 387),
13
and May 18, 2009 (Tr. 371-72).
14
Fourth, in discussing Plaintiff’s treatment notes, the ALJ omitted key points. In the
15
same July 2008 treatment notes referenced by the ALJ, Dr. Terkeltaub noted Plaintiff still
16
has “widespread tender points in stereotypic locations for fibromyalgia.” (Tr. 254.)
17
18
Further, as discussed above, the ALJ omitted an essential word when discussing Dr.
19
Terkeltaub’s September 2009 treatment notes. Dr. Terkeltaub noted “all her tender
20
points are less better,” indicating that Plaintiff’s condition was not improving. (Tr. 356.)
21
22
23
The ALJ did not support his conclusion as to Plaintiff’s lack of credibility with clear
and convincing reasons, and no evidence suggested that Plaintiff was malingering.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony as to
24
the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The Court credits
25
26
Plaintiff’s testimony as a matter of law. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 834.
27
//
28
//
18
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
C.
Plaintiff’s Veteran Administration’s Disability Rating
2
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in not giving proper weight the VA’s disability
3
4
rating of 80%. The Court agrees.
5
The Ninth Circuit has held that an ALJ must ordinarily give great weight to a VA
6
determination of disability because of the marked similarity between these two federal
7
disability programs. McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002).
8
However, an ALJ “may give less weight to a VA disability rating if he gives persuasive,
9
specific, valid reasons for doing so that are supported by the record.” Id. “The
10
11
acquisition of new evidence or a properly justified reevaluation of old evidence constitutes
12
a persuasive, specific, and valid reason . . . supported by the record.” Valentine, 574
13
F.3d at 695 (internal quotation marks omitted).
14
15
16
The ALJ gave little weight to Plaintiff’s VA disability rating because it found that
Plaintiff’s pain and depression improved with treatment. (Tr. 20.) The Court disagrees.
The treatment notes relied on by the ALJ do not indicate Plaintiff’s condition was
17
18
improving, but, rather, was variable. (Tr. 355.) See Lester, 81 F.3d at 833 (noting that
19
“[o]ccasional symptom-free periods – and even the sporadic ability to work – are not
20
inconsistent with disability”) (internal citations omitted). In September 2009, Dr.
21
Terkeltaub noted Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia tender points were not improving. (Tr. 356.)
22
Further, in February 2010, Dr. Moutier found that while Plaintiff’s treatment was
23
24
aggressive, it did not resolve her symptoms, leaving her in a completely disabled state.
(Tr. 314.) Because the ALJ did not provide a persuasive, specific, and valid reason, the
25
26
Court finds the ALJ erred in giving little weight to the disability rating.
27
//
28
//
19
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
D.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Remand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate where enhancement
of the record would be useful. Benecke, 379 F.3d at 593. On the other hand, the district
court should remand for an immediate award of benefits where the record has been fully
developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Id.
Specifically, the court should credit evidence rejected by the ALJ as true and remand for
an immediate award of benefits if (1) the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons
for rejecting evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues that must be resolved before
the disability determination can be made; and (3) it is clear from the record that the ALJ
would be required to find the claimant disabled were such evidence credited. Harman v.
Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1292
(9th Cir. 1996)).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Entitlement to Benefits
The ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Moutier’s
assessment of Plaintiff’s limitations, for ignoring Dr. Terkeltaub’s opinion of Plaintiff's
fibromyalgia condition, and for discrediting Plaintiff's pain testimony. In this case, when
proper deference and weight is given to the assessment of Dr. Moutier, the opinion of Dr.
Terkeltaub, and Plaintiff’s pain testimony, Plaintiff does not have the residual capacity to
perform sedentary work or any other substantial work that exists in the national economy.
Accordingly, it is clear that the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff disabled. Therefore,
Plaintiff is disabled and is entitled to an award of benefits.
21
//
22
23
24
25
26
//
//
//
//
27
//
28
//
20
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
5
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The
decision of the ALJ is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Social Security
Administration for a calculation of benefits. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2012
10
11
HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
12
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
3:11-CV-00838-BTM-DHB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?