Iserloth v. Colvin
Filing
18
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's 16 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that Iserloth's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Iserloth's claim is REMANDED to the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall instruct the ALJ to calculate and award benefits. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 11/29/2017. (SLR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
MIKE EDWARD ISERLOTH,
CV-16-00114-GF-BMM-JTJ
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commission of Social Security,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Mike Iserloth filed a Complaint requesting a review of the Social
Security Administration’s decision to deny him disability benefits on November 8,
2016. (Doc. 2). Judge Johnston entered Findings and Recommendations in this
matter on October 2, 2017. (Doc. 16.) Judge Johnston recommended that the Court
grant Iserloth’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. at 22. Judge Johnston further recommended
that Iserloth’s claim be remanded to the Commissioner with instructions for the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to calculate and award benefits. Id.
The Commissioner timely filed an objection. (Doc. 17.) The Commissioner
objects to Judge Johnston’s findings that the ALJ improperly assessed Iserloth’s
1
credibility and Dr. Warr’s opinion. Id. at 2. The Commissioner additionally objects
to Judge Johnston’s finding that Iserloth has satisfied all of the requirements of the
“credit-as-true” rule. Id. The Commissioner asks that this Court decline to adopt
Judge Johnston’s findings and recommendations and affirm the Commissioner’s
final decision. Id.
The Court reviews de novo Findings and Recommendations to which a party
timely objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews portions of Judge
Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations not specifically objected to for clear
error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,
1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
A. Iserloth’s Credibility
Judge Johnston determined that the ALJ failed to identify what specific
testimony from Iserloth lacked credibility in light of the evidence that the ALJ
cited. (Doc. 16 at 12.) Judge Johnston determined that it is not the Court’s role to
discern what specific complaints the ALJ found not credible. Id. at 12. The Ninth
Circuit has recognized that when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom
testimony, the ALJ must identify specifically what testimony is not credible and
what evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d
1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996). General findings prove insufficient. Id.
2
The Commissioner agrees that the ALJ must identify the testimony she
found not credible. (Doc. 17 at 3.) The Commissioner argues, however, that Judge
Johnston overstated the level of specificity that an ALJ must provide in that
analysis. Id. The Court agrees with Judge Johnston’s determination that the ALJ
failed to identify what specific testimony from Iserloth proved not credible. The
ALJ made general findings regarding Iserloth’s abilities. The ALJ further failed to
link the non-credible evidence with the particular part of the record that supported
her non-credibility determination.
B. Dr. Warr’s Opinion
An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion when contradicted by
another physician’s opinion only by providing specific and legitimate reasons that
are supported by substantial evidence. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th
Cir. 2017). For example, contradictions between a doctor’s opinion and that
doctor’s own clinical notes constitutes a specific and legitimate reason to reject a
treating physician’s opinion that has been contradicted. Valentine v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009).
Judge Johnston determined that the ALJ gave very little weight to Dr.
Warr’s opinion as Iserloth’s treating physician. (Doc. 16 at 14.) The ALJ gave
“some weight” to the opinions of Dr. David Jordan and Dr. William Fernandez.
Neither of these doctors treated or examined Iserloth. Id. Judge Johnston
3
determined that the ALJ failed to provide, under these circumstances, a specific
and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Warr’s opinions as the treating physician.
Id. at 16. Judge Johnston further concluded that the ALJ failed to cite to the
substantial evidence that supported her determination that Dr. Warr’s opinions
contradicted his clinical notes. Id.
The Commissioner argues that the Court must look to the record to see
whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions, even if the ALJ referred to
that evidence by exhibit number rather than page number. (Doc. 17 at 4.) The
Court functions to provide a review of the ALJ’s decision based on the reasoning
and factual findings set forth by the ALJ. Bray v. Comm’r of SSA, 554 F.3d 1219,
1226 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court possesses a duty to look to the record to see
whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions. It proves nearly impossible,
however, for the Court to know on what issue the ALJ bases her decision when the
ALJ cites to the entirety of 140 pages of medical records. The Court agrees with
Judge Johnston’s determination that the ALJ failed to provide specific and
legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in rejecting Dr. Warr’s
opinion as Iserloth’s treating physician.
C. Remedy
A remand to the agency for “additional investigation or explanation”
generally provides the appropriate remedy. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
4
Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014). Congress has granted courts some
additional flexibility, however, “to reverse or modify an administrative decision
without remanding the case for further proceedings.” Id. Remand for an award of
benefits proves appropriate under the following circumstances: (1) the record has
been developed fully and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful
purpose; (2) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting
evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) the ALJ would
be required to find the claimant disabled on remand if the improperly discredited
evidence were credited as true. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir.
2014).
Judge Johnston determined that Iserloth had satisfied all three prongs of
Garrison. (Doc. 16 at 21.) Judge Johnston determined that the extensive record,
including medical records and testimony, corroborated Iserloth’s impairments. Id.
Judge Johnston determined that the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons
for rejecting the informed medical opinion of Dr. Warr. If Dr. Warr’s opinion was
credited as true, Dr. Warr’s opinion establishes that Iserloth was disabled for the
period of time set forth in the “Disability Questionnaire.” Id. Judge Johnston
finally determined there exists no “serious doubt” based on “an evaluation of the
record as a whole” that Iserloth is disabled. Id. at 22.
5
The Commissioner argues that a remand for a finding of disability would
not be the appropriate remedy. (Doc. 17 at 5.) The Commissioner contends that
conflicts remain in the record between the opinions of Dr. Jordan and Dr.
Fernandez and the opinion of Dr. Warr. Id. at 6. The Commissioner further argues
that remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation would be the
appropriate remedy. Id. at 5.
The decision whether to remand a case for additional evidence, or to award
benefits, falls within the discretion of the court. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 682. A
treating physician’s opinion may be contradicted only by a non-treating physician
if the ALJ provides specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by
substantial evidence. Id. at 675. The ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient
reasons for rejecting the informed medical opinion of Dr. Warr. Dr. Warr’s
opinion, if credited as true, establishes the disability of Iserloth. Dr. Warr’s opinion
prevails over non-treating physicians’ opinions.
The Court agrees with Judge Johnston’s determination that Iserloth has
satisfied the Garrison test. The Court further agrees with Judge Johnston’s
determination that remand for an award of benefits remains appropriate.
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations specifically objected to. The Court has reviewed for clear error
6
Judge Johnston’s remaining Findings and Recommendations. The Court finds no
error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 16), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment
is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED that Iserloth’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Iserloth’s claim is REMANDED to the
Commissioner. The Commissioner shall instruct the ALJ to calculate and award
benefits.
DATED this 29th day of November, 2017.
7
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?