Pixley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER. Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 08/26/2013 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (pvh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
AARON A. PIXLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMNISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
LINDA S. ZISKIN
Ziskin Law Office
P.O. Box 753833
Las Vegas, Nevada 89136
Attorney for Plaintiff
S. AMANDA NARSHALL
United States Attorney
ADRIAN L. BROWN
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204-2902
BENJAMIN J. GROEBNER
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A
Seattle, Washington 98104-1075
Attorneys for Defendant
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
3:12-cv-00877-NA
OPINION AND ORDER
MARSH, Judge
Pixley, brings this action for judicial
Plaintiff, Aaron A.
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(the
denying
Commissioner )
his
for
application
supplemental
security income (SSI) disability benefits under Title XVI of the
See 42 U.S.C.
Social Security Act (the Act).
§§
court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
reasons
set
below,
forth
I
reverse
the
§
final
This
1381-1383f,
405(g).
For the
decision of
the
Commissioner and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for SSI on August
30,
2005
alleging
cardiomyopat hy,
due
disability
to
[attention deficit disorder),
apnea, obesity."
Tr. 251-52.
dystrophy,
"[m)uscular
depression,
sleep
The claim was denied initially and
prior ALJ
issued a
decision on December 3, 2008, denying plaintiff's claim.
Tr. 113-
upon
reconsiderati on.
After a
hearing,
a
22.
On November 2, 2010, the Appeals Council vacated the decision
and
remanded
for
further
proceedings.
Tr.
126-28.
A second
hearing was held by a different ALJ on February 7, 2011, at which
plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified.
In addition,
plaintiff's vocational rehabilitatio n counselor, Donna Ray Luckett,
and mother,
Melody Ann Pixley,
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
testified on plaintiff's behalf.
Vocational
the
throughout
present
was
Jesky
Gary
(VE)
Expert
hearing and testified.
2011, the ALJ issued a decision once again
On February 16,
The Appeals Council
denying plaintiff's application.
declined
review, and plaintiff timely appealed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Born on April 9, 1984, plaintiff was 21 years old on the date
of the application and 26 years old on the date of the hearing.
Plaintiff has a bachelor's degree in English and no past relevant
work.
Plaintiff alleges his conditions became disabling on his date
1984.
of birth, April 9,
plaintiff
submitted
an
In addition to his hearing testimony,
Report,
Function
Adult
Questionnair e, and Pain Questionnair e.
Fatigue
Tr. 224-31, 232-35, 236-38.
In addition to her hearing testimony, plaintiff's mother submitted
Tr. 263-70.
a Third Party Function Report.
Tr.
David Pixley, also submitted a letter.
Plaintiff's father,
379~80.
As relevant to this case, plaintiff's treating psychologist ,
Jay Edwards, Ph. D., submitted two opinions that assigned functional
limitations,
one
dated October
September 30, 2008.
PMHNP,
18,
2007,
Tr. 641-44, 646-50.
plaintiff's
treating
the
other
dated
In addition, Anita Katz,
psychiatric
practitioner , submitted an opinion.
and
mental
Tr. 552-55.
health
nurse
Ronald D. Duvall,
Ph.D., examined plaintiff and submitted an evaluative opinion.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
Tr.
652-61.
Finally,
the
record contains one page of a
opinion by Dr. Luahra Ude, Ph.D.
four-page
Tr. 667.
THE ALJ'S DISABILITY ANALYSIS
The
Commissioner
established
has
a
sequential
five-step
process for determining whether a person is disabled.
Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); 20 C.F.R.
§
Bowen v.
416.920(a) (4) (i)-
Each step is potentially dispositive.
The claimant bears the
burden of proof at Steps One through Four.
Tackett v. Apfel, 180
(v).
F. 3d
1094,
1098
(9th
Cir.
The
1999).
burden
shifts
to
the
Commissioner at Step Five to show that a significant number of jobs
exist in the national economy that the claimant can perform.
See
Yuckert, 482 U.S. at 141-42; Tackett, 180 F.3d at 1098.
At Step One, the ALJ determined that plaintiff has not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since the application date, August
30, 2005.
At
See 20 C.F.R.
Step
Two,
the
§§
ALJ
416.971 et seq.; Tr. 18.
determined
plaintiff's
that
Becker
muscular dystrophy; "Asperger's disorder vs. an anxiety disorder;"
cardiomyopat hy; obesity; obstructive sleep apnea; depression; an
avoidant
personality
disorder;
personality disorder are
severe
and
an
obsessive-com pulsive
impairments.
See
20 C.F.R.
§
416.920(c); Tr. 19-20.
At Step Three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff does not have
an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
equal any listed impairmen t.
See 20 C.F.R.
§§
416.920(d ), 416.925,
416.926; Tr. 21-22.
The ALJ found
that
the
plaintiff has
residual
functiona l
capacity (RFC) to perform less than the full range of light work,
including limitation s that plaintiff can only lift and carry 20
pounds occasiona lly and 10 pounds frequently ; can stand, walk, or
sit at
least
stoop
or
balance,
six hours
can only climb,
in an eight-hou r day;
occasiona lly;
cannot
in
work
a
hazardous
environme nt; and can have no more than occasiona l interactio n with
the public.
The ALJ additiona lly limited plaintiff to unskilled or
low semi-skil led work.
Finally, the ALJ noted that plaintiff works
best alone, and not as part of a team.
At
Step
relevant work.
At
Step
Four,
the
found
ALJ
See 20 C.F.R.
Five,
§
Tr. 22-28.
that
plaintiff
no
past
416.965; Tr. 28.
the ALJ found
however,
has
that
jobs exist
in
significan t numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can
perform,
including Janitoria l Worker
Assembler .
See 20 C.F.R.
According ly,
§§
(light)
and Small
Product
416.969, 416.969(a ); Tr. 29.
the ALJ found that plaintiff \vas not disabled
within the meaning of the Act.
ISSUES ON REVIEW
Plaintiff raises five arguments on appeal.
First, plaintiff
alleges the ALJ failed to follow the instructio ns contained in the
Appeals Council's remand order.
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
Second, plaintiff asserts that the
ALJ
improperly
rejected
opinion
the
Third,
Edwards.
Dr.
of
plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the opinion of
Dr.
Fourth,
Ude.
plaintiff maintains that the ALJ improperly
rejected the opinion of Ms. Katz.
Finally, plaintiff asserts that
the ALJ improperly rejected the testimony of plaintiff's vocational
rehabilitation counselor, Ms. Lockett.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
affirm the Commissioner's
court must
decision if
the
Commissioner applied proper legal standards and the findings are
supported by substantial evidence
405(g); Andrews v.
in the
53 F.3d 1035,
Shalala,
42 u.s.c.
record.
1039
(9th Cir.
§
1995).
''Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla but less
than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
court must
weigh
all
of the
evidence,
whether
detracts from the Commissioner's decision.
807 F.2d 771, 772 (9th Cir. 1986).
to
more
than
one
rational
decision must be upheld.
supports
The
or
Martinez v. Heckler,
If the evidence is susceptible
interpretation,
Andrews,
it
Id.
the
Commissioner's
53 F.3d at 1039-40.
If the
evidence supports the Commissioner's conclusion, the Commissioner
must be affirmed;
"the court may not substitute its judgment for
that of the Commissioner."
1156 (9th Cir. 2001).
Ill
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
Edlund v. Massanari,
253 F.3d 1152,
DISCUSSION
I.
Compliance with the Appeals Council Order
Plaintiff
first
argues
Appeals Council's remand order.
follow
the ALJ failed to
that
the
The Appeals Council ordered the
ALJ to: 1) Evaluate Dr. Edwards' 2008 opinion; 2) Further evaluate
plaintiff's subjective complaints; 3) Evaluate plaintiff's mental
impairments in accordance with the special technique described in
20 C.F.R.
§
416.920a and document the evaluation accordingly; 4)
Further evaluate plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC) in
light of the medical source opinions;
"evidence"
from a medical expert;
and
additional vocational expert testimony.
Obtain,
5)
if necessary,
If warranted,
6)
Plaintiff
126-27.
Tr.
obtain
specifically argues that the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Edwards'
opinion,
failed to obtain evidence
erroneously
relied
on
some
of
from a
the
medical expert,
prior
ALJ's
and
findings.
Plaintiff's arguments are without merit.
The ALJ clearly considered Dr.
Edwards'
2008 opinion.
The
ALJ's opinion contains nearly a page of discussion of Dr. Edwards'
1
opinions, much of which focuses on the 2008 opinion.
Tr. 26.
The
Appeals Council did not order the ALJ to ascribe any particular
weight to Dr. Edwards' opinion, but rather instructed the 2011 ALJ
To the extent plaintiff argues the ALJ cited inadequate
reasons to discredit Dr. Edwards opinions, that argument is
addressed below.
1
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
to consider the 2008 opinion.
The ALJ plainly complied with that
The ALJ also clearly obtained additional evidence
instruction.
from a medical expert, as the 2011 ALJ obtained an evaluation and
report from Dr.
Duvall.
Tr.
Obtaining this evaluation
651-61.
also clearly satisfies the Appeals Council's mandate.
Finally, the
simple fact that the 2011 ALJ made some of the same findings and
reached some of the same conclusions, even if in the same terms, as
the 2008 ALJ does not establish that the 2011 ALJ failed to follow
I conclude that the 2011 ALJ
the Appeals Council's remand order.
sufficiently complied with the remand order.
II.
Consideration of Medical Testimony
Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred in his consideration
of the medical testimony by improperly rejecting the opinions of
Drs.
Edwards and Ode.
convincing
reasons
to
The Commissioner must provide clear and
reject
treating or examining physician.
830-31
(9th
Cir.
1995).
opinion
uncontradicte d
the
of
a
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
Where
a
physician's
opinion
is
contradicted by that of another physician, the ALJ may reject the
physician's opinion by providing specific and legitimate reasons
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Id.
"'The ALJ
need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating
physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately
supported by clinical findings.'"
661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012)
8 - OPINION AND ORDER
Chaudhry v. Astrue,
688 F.3d
(quoting Bray v. Comm' r Soc. Sec. Admin"'
554 F. 3d 1219, 1228
the record
"'Where
2009)).
(9th Cir.
the ALJ is charged with
contains conflictin g medical evidence,
determinin g credibilit y and resolving the conflict. '"
Id. (quoting
Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003)).
The ALJ
is responsib le for translatin g the claimant' s medical condition s
into functiona l limitation s in the RFC.
See Stubbs-Da nielson v.
Ultimately , the RFC
Astrue, 539 F. 3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008).
is sufficien t if it is
~consistent
with restrictio ns identified in
Id.
the medical testimony ."
Dr . Edwards
A.
The record contains three opinions from Dr. Edwards.
July
2006
19,
evaluation ,
diagnosed
psycholog ist,
Dr.
plaintiff 's
Disabilit ies and Asperger Syndrome.
with
Tr. 469.
treating
Nonverbal
Edwards,
plaintiff
After a
Learning
Dr. Edwards did not
directly ascribe any functiona l limitation s to plaintiff at that
but
time,
did
describe
some
character istics
of
plaintiff 's
diagnoses , and made recommend ations for plaintiff 's performan ce in
school.
Tr. 469-70.
On October 18, 2007,
plaintiff 's
functiona l
Dr. Edwards submitted an opinion as to
limitation s.
Dr.
Edwards
checked
that
plaintiff 's abilities in skills required for unskilled work were
largely
~good"
with only
~fair"
abilities to work in coordinat ion
with, or proximity to others, make simple work-rela ted decisions ,
perform at a consisten t pace,
9 - OPINION AND ORDER
and deal with normal work stress.
Tr.
Dr.
641-42.
explained that
Edwards
plaintiff's
"Asperger
negatively affects spontaneous peer interactions and
Disorder . .
the ability to respond efficiently in stressful conditions," and
that his muscular dystrophy "negatively affects his stamina and
motor speed skills."
skilled work,
abilities
with
Dr.
642.
Tr.
With respect to semi-skilled and
Edwards opined that plaintiff had only "fair"
to
respect
those
Tr.
requirements .
643.
Dr.
Edwards noted, however, that plaintiff's abilities to interact with
the general public, maintain socially appropriate behavior, adhere
to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness,
and use public
transportatio n were also "good," while his ability to adhere to
travel
in
unfamiliar
places
was
only
"fair"
"difficulty spontaneously adapting to change."
because
I d.
he
has
Dr. Edwards
also noted that "motor incoordinatio n and speed of processing are
also areas of weakness."
Tr. 644.
Finally, on September 30, 2008, Dr. Edwards conducted another
He noted that plaintiff
evaluation and submitted another opinion.
generally fell in the average range of intelligence and the working
memory index, but found that plaintiff had a relative weakness in
processing speed.
tasks,
Tr. 648.
Thus, Dr. Edwards noted that "[t)imed
especially those that require visual scanning and copying
will slow [plaintiff's) performance. "
with
plaintiff's
mother,
Dr.
Id.
Edwards
Based on an interview
found
that
plaintiff's
Adaptive Behavior Composite scores were "typical of individuals
10 - OPINION AND ORDER
functioning in the range of mild mental retardation," and noted
that plaintiff functions
· teenager."
Tr.
Dr. Edwards concluded that plaintiff
supervision and
require
"will
Thus,
650.
level more typical of an early
"at a
support
in order to continue to
Id.
develop age appropriate independent living skills."
The ALJ discredited Dr. Edwards' opinion because it was vague
Specifically , the ALJ
and inconsistent with the record as a whole.
noted that Dr. Edwards' opinion that plaintiff was significantly
limited in his activities of daily living was inconsistent with
other
evidence
of
plaintiff's
activities,
and
relied
on
an
interview with plaintiff's mother that contradicted her Third Party
Function Report.
Tr. 26.
Because much of Dr. Edwards' opinion was
contradicted by that of Dr. Duvall, the ALJ was required to cite
specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Edwards' opinion.
Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31.
I conclude that the ALJ did so.
The ALJ reasonably cited inconsistency with plaintiff's level
of daily activity as a reason to discredit Dr. Edwards' opinion.
As the ALJ noted, plaintiff earned an approximately 3.0 grade point
average in college and worked part-time during that period.
57-58, 82-84, 87.
Dr.
Edwards'
independent
The ALJ reasonably found this inconsistent with
finding
living
that
skills
plaintiff
such
as
has
time
"glaring
and
money
deficits
in
management,
hygiene and self-care, [and] social and communicatio n skills."
650.
Tr.
Tr.
In addition, plaintiff admitted in his Adult Function Report
11 - OPINION AND ORDER
that he has no problem with personal care, including hygiene and
his lunch every day,
Moreover,
Plaintiff represented that he prepares
Tr. 225.
feeding himself.
Tr.
and makes easily prepared meals.
laundry,
plaintiff reported that he does his
226.
changes
sheets, cleans the house, vacuums, and performs household repairs.
Id.
Plaintiff also represented that he is able to pay bills, count
and use a checkbook and money
change, handle a savings account,
orders.
Tr.
The ALJ reasonably discredited Dr.
227.
Edwards'
opinion because his conclusions were inconsistent with plaintiff's
admitted activities of daily living.
The ALJ also properly discredited Dr. Edwards' opinion because
the
most
portion
limiting
it
of
interview with plaintiff's mother.
was
Indeed,
an
on
based
unreliable
the portion of Dr.
Edwards' exam that assessed plaintiff's "Adaptive Functioning" was
based on an interview with plaintiff's mother.
Tr.
648.
This
portion of the evaluation is the only portion in which plaintiff's
functional limitations were significant.
deficits"
by
found
Dr.
Edwards
in
Tr. 647-50.
this
section
The "glaring
based on
the
interview with plaintiff's mother, however, are in stark contrast
to her Third Party Function Report, in which she reported that he
has no problems with personal care, prepares breakfast and lunch on
a daily basis, performs house and yard work, and can take care of
his finances.
Edwards'
Tr.
opinion
The ALJ reasonably discredited Dr.
264-66.
because
12 - OPINION AND ORDER
it
was
based
on
an
interview
with
plaintiff's mother that was inconsistent with Ms. Pixley's previous
statements.
Finally,
found
the ALJ also noted that Dr.
that plaintiff had generally "good"
unskilled
and
work
capacity to perform
perform semiskilled or
Indeed, the RFC is largely consistent with
Tr. 26.
skilled work.
to
capacity
"fair"
2007 opinion
Edwards'
these findings, as it limits plaintiff to "unskilled to low semiTr. 22.
skilled work."
Dr.
Edwards'
thoroughly
Thus, the extent to which the ALJ rejected
opinion was
limited to
The
discussed.
that he most
the portion
ALJ properly
Dr.
weighed
Edwards'
opinions.
B.
Dr. Ude's Opinion
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Ude's
opinion,
There
is only one page
entitled "Psychologic al
plaintiff
has
sensitivities ,
a
Review,"
number
slowed
of
processing
in the record from Dr.
in which
social
speed,
Dr.
Ude
opined that
limitations,
poor
Ude,
sensory
visual-spati al
organization abilities, and is slow to adapt to change.
Tr.
667.
The ALJ rejected Dr. Ude's opinion because only one of four pages
were present in the record, making the context in which she made
her assessment unclear, and because her opinion was inconsistent
with plaintiff's daily activities and the record as a whole.
27.
13 - OPINION AND ORDER
Tr.
Plaintiff argues,
howeve~,
that the ALJ erred in discrediting
Dr. Ude's opinion because the partial opinion triggered the ALJ's
duty to develop the record.
I agree.
In social security cases,
the ALJ "has an independent 'duty to fully and fairly develop the
record
and
to
assure
that
the
claimant's
interests
are
considered.'n Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir.
2001)
(quoting Smolen v.
1996)) .
Chater,
80
F.3d 1273,
1288
(9th Cir.
The duty to develop the record is triggered where the
record contains ambiguous evidence or the ALJ finds the record is
inadequate to allow for a proper evaluation of the evidence.
Here,
as
the
ALJ's
rejection
suggests,
the
record
was
of
Dr.
inadequate
Ude's
to
opinion
properly
Id.
strongly
evaluate
her
opinion because "it is not clear in what context she made her
Tr.
assessment."
27.
The ALJ erred in not attempting to re-
contact Dr. Ude to obtain a complete opinion.
F.3d at 1150
See Tonapetyan, 242
(explaining that the ALJ can discharge the duty by
making inquiries of, or subpoenaing the opining physician).
III. Consideration of Other Testimony
A.
Ms. Luckett
Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erroneously rejected the
testimony
of
Donna
Ray
rehabilitation counselor.
symptoms
or how an
Luckett,
plaintiff's
Lay testimony regarding a claimant's
impairment affects
her
ability to work
competent evidence that an ALJ must take into account.
14 - OPINION AND ORDER
vocational
is
Molina v.
Astrue,
674
F. 3d 1104,
(9th Cir.
1114
lay
To discount
2012}.
witness testimony, the ALJ must give reasons that are germane to
Id.
the witness.
At
hearing,
the
plaintiff in a
Ms.
testified
Luckett
she
that
placed
but
job doing light production packaging,
that
plaintiff was unable to perform the physical demands of the job
because he is unable to multi task in a fast-paced work environment.
Tr.
57.
Ms.
Luckett
opined that
have
not
plaintiff does
the
Tr. 58.
physical or emotional stability to handle full-time work.
Ms. Luckett further testified that plaintiff is limited in his fine
manipulation motor skills.
Tr. 63.
The ALJ rejected Ms. Luckett's testimony because she is not
Tr.
qualified to assess plaintiff's medical impairments.
conclude
this
is
a
germane
reason
to
reject
Ms.
28.
I
Luckett's
Indeed, much of Ms. Luckett's testimony was predicated
testimony.
on an understanding of plaintiff's medical diagnoses.
For example,
Ms. Luckett testified that plaintiff "does have Asperger's and all
of the personality issues and cognitive communication issues that
go to play with someone who's a very high functioning Asperger's
individual."
Tr.
57.
Additionally,
Ms.
Luckett testified that
plaintiff's "fine manipulation motor skills are fairly limited.
He
also has muscular dystrophy," which the ALJ rejected because there
was no "evidence in this record that supports manipulative limits."
Tr.
63.
The ALJ reasonably discredited Ms.
15 - OPINION AND ORDER
Luckett's
opinion
because,
as a
lay witness,
medical judgments.
I
her testimony was based in part on
conclude the ALJ cited germane reasons to
reject Ms. Luckett's testimony.
B.
Ms. Katz's Opinion
Anita Katz, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner who
was one of plaintiff's treating mental health professionals, also
submitted an opinion regarding plaintiff's mental limitations.
552-55.
As a nurse practitioner, Ms.
Tr.
Katz is an "other source"
whose opinion may only be rejected if the ALJ cites reasons germane
to the witness.
See Molina,
674 F.3d at 1111.
briefly summarized some of Ns.
Although the ALJ
Katz's chart notes,
he did not
mention- or provide any reason for rejecting- Ms. Katz's opinion.
This was clear error.
Because I cannot conclude what effect Ms.
Katz's opinion would have on the ultimate disability determination,
I cannot find that the ALJ's failure to address f'ls. Katz's opinion
was harmless error.
IV.
Remand
After finding the ALJ erred,
remand
for
benefits.
further
proceedings
Harman v. Apfel,
this court has discretion to
or
for
immediate
211 F.3d 1172, 1178
payment
of
(9th Cir. 2000).
The issue turns on the utility of further proceedings.
A remand
for an award of benefits is appropriate where there is no useful
purpose to be served by further proceedings or where the record is
fully developed.
16 - OPINION AND ORDER
The Ninth Circuit
has
established
a
three-part
test
"for
determining when evidence should be credited and an immediate award
of benefits directed."
Id.
The court should grant an immediate
award of benefits when:
(1) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient
reasons for rejecting such evidence, (2) there are no
outstanding issues that must be resolved before a
determination of disability 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.
Id.
(quoting Smolen, 80 F. 3d at 1292).
Where it is not clear that
the ALJ would be required to award benefits were the improperly
rejected evidence credited,
credit the evidence.
the court has discretion whether to
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 876 (9th
Cir. 2003).
On
this
resolved.
Ude,
record,
there
remain
outstanding
issues
to
be
The ALJ must attempt to obtain the full report from Dr.
or seek clarification on the nature of the current report.
Additionally, the ALJ must consider Ms. Katz's opinion.
If the ALJ
accepts either of the opinions, he must determine what effect the
opinions have on the RFC,
necessary.
seeking additional VE testimony,
if
If the ALJ chooses to reject the opinions of Dr. Ude or
Ms. Katz, he must provide legally sufficient reasons for doing so.
Ill
Ill
Ill
17 - OPINION AND ORDER
CONCLUSION
Based
on
the
foregoing,
the
Commissioner's
decision
is
REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C.
§
405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ~? day of August, 2013.
Malcolm F. Marsh
United States District Judge
18 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?