McClure v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER Adopting 25 Report and Recommendation; Denying Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/24/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH MCCLURE,

Case No.: 16cv2515-JLS (JLB)

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
of Social Security,

16
17

Defendant.

18

(ECF No. 25)

19
20

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

21

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 19, 21). Magistrate Judge Robert

22

N. Block has issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”, ECF No. 25), recommending

23

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant’s Cross-Motion for

24

Summary Judgment be denied, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the

25

Commissioner and remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings. Having

26

reviewed the Parties’ motions, Judge Block’s R&R, and the underlying Administrative

27

Record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Blocks Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

28
1
16cv2515-JLS (JLB)

1

BACKGROUND

2

Judge Block’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and

3

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 2–

4

3.)1 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

5

LEGAL STANDARD

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district

7

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The

8

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which

9

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

10

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United

11

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614,

12

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only

13

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

14

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment

15

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United

16

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must

17

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made,

18

but not otherwise.”).

19

ANALYSIS

20

In this present case, neither party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Block’s

21

R&R. (See R&R 8 (objections due by May 1, 2018).) Having reviewed the R&R, the

22

Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error.

23

In this matter, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) rejected the opinion of

24

Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Le. (R&R 3.) In his R&R, Judge Block determined

25

the ALJ erred in this decision. The Court agrees the ALJ’s determination did not provide

26

legally sufficient reasons to reject Dr. Le’s opinion. The ALJ rejected Dr. Le’s opinion

27
28

1

Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
2
16cv2515-JLS (JLB)

1

because it contradicted the medical evidence of record. (Id. at 6.) However, the ALJ failed

2

to pinpoint the medical evidence of record that allegedly contradicted Dr. Le’s opinion.

3

(Id.) The ALJ also rejected Dr. Le’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the other

4

experts’ opinions. (Id.) Any inconsistency between Dr. Le’s opinion and the other experts’

5

opinions only determined the standard to be applied to the ALJ’s reasons for not accepting

6

Dr. Le’s opinion and did not itself constitute a legally sufficient reason for rejection. (Id.

7

at 6–7.) The ALJ also rejected Dr. Le’s opinion because she did not take into account

8

Plaintiff’s drug addiction and alcoholism history. (Id. at 8.) But, Dr. Le did take into

9

account Plaintiff’s drug addiction and alcoholism history when she completed the Mental

10

Impairment Questionnaire form and checked “No” to the question “If your patient’s

11

impairments include alcohol or substance abuse, do alcohol or substance abuse contribute

12

to any of your patient’s limitations set forth above?” (Id.) The Court agrees remanding

13

for further administrative proceedings is appropriate because additional proceedings could

14

remedy the defects in the ALJ’s decision. (Id. at 7.)

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Block’s Report and

16

Recommendation; (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES

17

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) REMANDS the case to the

18

Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Because this concludes the

19

litigation in this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16cv2515-JLS (JLB)