Hall v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER. The ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. This matter is reversed and remanded for the calculation and award of benefits, and this matter is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 12/13/2012 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ANTHONY WAYNE HALL,
Plaintiff,
6:11-CV- 06359 RE
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
REDDEN, Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Hall ("Hall") brings this action to obtain judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying
his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and for Supplemental Security Income
("SSI") benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed
and this matter is remanded for the calculation and payment of benefits.
1 - OPINION AND ORDER
•
BACKGROUND
Born in 1968, Hall filed applications for DIB and SSI benefits in July 2008. He has past
relevant work as a tow truck driver and tractor-trailer driver. Hall alleges disability since July I,
2005, due to bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder ("ADHD"), high blood pressure, and cholesterol. His applications were denied initially
and upon reconsideration, and in a hearing decision dated January 18, 2011. Hall's request for
review was denied, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
ALJ's DECISION
The ALJ found Hall had the medically determinable severe impairments of polysubstance
abuse and antisocial personality disorder. Tr. 15.
The ALJ found that Hall's impahments did not meet or medically equal one of the listed
impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. !d.
The ALJ dete1mined that Hall retained the residual functional capacity to perfom1 a full
range of work with no public contact and no coworker contact. Tr. 16.
The medical records accurately set out Hall's medical history as it relates to his claim for
benefits. The court has carefully reviewed the extensive medical record, and the parties are
familiar with it. Accordingly, the details of those medical records will be set out below only as
they are relevant to the issues before the comi.
DISCUSSION
Hall contends that the ALJ erred by: ( 1) improperly weighing physician testimony; (2)
finding him not fully credible; and (3) failing to meet his burden of proving Hall capable of
performing other work.
2 - OPINION AND ORDER
•
I. Medical Source Opinions
Disability opinions are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(l);
416.927(e)( 1). If no conflict arises between medical source opinions, the ALJ generally must
accord greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician than that of an examining physician.
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). More weight is given to the opinion of a
treating physician because the person has a greater oppmiunity to know and observe the patient
as an individual. Om v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9'h Cir. 2007). In such circumstances the
ALJ should also give greater weight to the opinion of an examining physician over that of a
reviewing physician. Id. If a treating or examining physician's opinion is not contradicted by
another physician, the ALJ may only reject it for clear and convincing reasons. Id. (Treating
physician); Widmark v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9'h Cir. 2006) (examining physician).
Even if one physician is contradicted by another physician, the ALJ may not reject the opinion
without providing specific and legitimate reasons suppmied by substantial evidence in the record.
Om, 495 F.3d at 632; Widmark, 454 F.3d at 1066. The opinion of an nonexamining physician,
by itself, is insufficient to constitute substantial evidence to reject the opinion of a treating or
examining physician. Widmark, 454 F.3d at 1066 n. 2. The ALJ may reject physician opinions
that are "brief, conclus01y, and inadequately suppotied by clinical findings." Bayliss v. Barnhart,
427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).
Hall argues that the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinion of the only examining
psychologist.
A. David R. Truhn, Psy. D.
3 - OPINION AND ORDER
•
Dr. Truhn conducted a Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation of Hall on April22,
2008. Tr. 258-264. He administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, the Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventmy-III, the
Comprehensive Trail Making Test, a mental status examination, and a clinical interview. Dr.
Truhn reviewed the medical record.
Dr. Truhn diagnosed Cannabis Dependence; Amphetamine Dependence, in early full
remission, by client report; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Panic Disorder without Agoraphobia;
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Combined Type; and Antisocial Personality Disorder.
Tr. 263. He assessed a cement Global Assessment of Functioning ("OAF") of 50.
Dr. Truhn concluded:
The primmy issue at this time seems to be that of the personality
disorder interfering in his ability to participate in treatment. He
has reported a history of criminal behavior, aggressive intimidating
behavior, lack of remorse, impulsively leaving jobs, and chronic
conflict with authority figures. Those are all symptoms of antisocial
personality disorder.
The secondmy issues seems [sic] to be the issues associated with
chemical dependency and his use of marijuana and methamphetamine.
He repmiedly has been using marijuana up until the time of the examination. He repotiedly had quit using methamphetamine eight or nine
months prior to the examination but he stated in the examination he had
been prescribed Adderal. The records state that the medication was
changed to Strattera.
There is a possibility that he is experiencing posttraumatic stress
disorder and panic disorder, although that is difficult to assess if he
is taking Adderal combined with a histmy of chemical dependency
and the impact of possible drug use or withdrawal on those symptoms.
There may also be motivational issues related to his s'elf-report as the
personality inventmy indicates an exaggerated response style.
Treatment recommendations include continued use of psychotropic
4 - OPINION AND ORDER
medications in an effort to treat the aggression and impulsive actions.
There is a chance that the aggressive behavior may respond to the
use of a psychotropic medication and that his impulsiveness may
respond to the use of an attentional medication such as Strattera.
It is recommended that stimulant medication such as Adderal or
Ritalin are not employed given his history of chemical dependency
issues and violent behavior.
It is recommended that he would participate in individual psychotherapy
to learn behavioral techniques to treat anxiety based issues such as
posttraumatic stress disorder, panic as well as impulsive behavior
and conflict resolution. It is recommended that the therapy would
assume primarily a behavioral format. He may respond best to a
contingency based program in an i£'then f01mat such as if he were to
participate in such programs then there would be this reward ....
It seems that Mr. Hall is not ready to work until he is able to abstain
from the use of drugs and is able to moderate his anger and impulsive
behavior. There is a chance that he could become aggressive in a
work setting or also that he would be umeliable.
It is recommended that Mr. Hall would pm1icipate in chemical
dependency treatment. It seems that there is a strong possibility that
the personality issues are the primary conflict regarding his ability
to complete chemical dependency treatment or maintain employment.
Mr. Hall's prognosis is poor. He struggled with chronic conflicts in
interpersonal relationships. Personality disorders often require external
motivation, and they tend to change little if any with intensive and long
tetm therapeutic intervention.
Tr. 263-64.
Dr. Truhn completed a Mental Residual Function Capacity Report in which he indicated
that Hall was markedly limited in: the ability to perform activities within a schedule, maintain
regular attendance and be punctual; the ability to sustain a routine without special supervision;
the ability to complete a n01mal workday and to perform at a consistent pace; the ability to
interact appropriately with the public; the ability to respond to supervision; the ability to get
5 - OPINION AND ORDER
'
along with co-workers, and the ability to maintain socially appropriate behavior. Dr. Tmlm
assessed multiple areas of moderate limitations. Tr. 266.
The ALJ noted Dr. Truhn's opinion, citing Trulm's comment that "there [was] a chance"
that Hall could become aggressive at work, and said it "is speculative at best, and is thus given
little weight." Tr. 18.
B. William Snyder III, Ph.D.
The ALJ gave "great weight" to the opinions of reviewing psychologists William Snyder,
Ph.D., A:roon Suansilppongse, M.D., and Sandra L. Lundblad, Psy. D. Dr. Snyder examined the
medical record in October 2008, and found Hall moderately limited in the ability to interact with
the public, co-workers, and supervisors, and the ability to maintain appropriate behavior. Tr.
317.
Dr. Snyder noted Dr. Trulm' s opinion, and stated that Hall did not show significant
limitations of cognitive function. He wrote:
The cit's social interactions did display limitations primarily due to
his antisocial personality disorder, and to a lesser extent, his anxiety
disorder. He is a man who has responded with irritability and impulsive
anger when things did not go his way. He has been abrupt and intolerant
of other's rights, usually prefers to be alone rather than go to the trouble
of controlling his reactions, and in the past has resorted to physical
aggression rather than discussion to solve conflicts. He balked at some
lengthy questionaire forms presented by Dr. Trulm and simply decided
not to put forth effort to complete that much work.
Dr. Trulm noted that the cit is highly prone to exaggerate his self described symptoms and tends to dwell, and to some extent boast, about
his negative traits. However, Dr. Tmlm found no test or mental status
evidence to support the presence of a Bipolar Disorder or Schizophrenia.
The cit has no lL" of psychiatric hospitalization and only unde1iook
counseling for his Cannabis dependence. The psychotropic medication
progress notes from 7/30 to 9/26/08 describe him as relatively stable,
6 - OPINION AND ORDER
t
emotionally, without aggressive behavior; some adjustments to his medication regimen were needed, per his request.
Dr. Truhn concluded his findings by assessing Cannabis Dependence,
RIO PTSD, ADHD, and Panic Disorder (which were mentioned in the
cit's outpatient records (however those documents were not submitted
by sufficiently credentialed sources), and Antisocial Personality Disorder.
This review only assesses limitations in regard to the cit's ability to
interact with others. He tends to be self centered, arbitrary, dogmatic and
unwilling to compromise. He is, however, reality based and aware of his
personality liabilities. He is accepting of medication to help him control
his impulsive behavior and the episodic symptoms of anxiety .... He
now expresses disinterest in counseling or person to person remedies.
The clt' s social imitations are assessed to be less than substantial in view
of his apparent benefit and pmtial remission of behavioral conflicts through
the psychotropic approach.
Tr. 318.
Dr. Suansilppongse reviewed the medical file and Dr. Snyder's opinion and agreed with
Dr. Snyder in November 2008. Tr. 321. Dr. Lundblad also reviewed the medical file and agreed
with Dr. Snyder in March 2009.
Examining physician Truhn's opinions as to Hall's limitations are contradicted by the
opinions of the nonexamining physicians. However, the ALI failed to articulate specific and
legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, to reject Dr Truhn. While Dr.
Truhn's assertion that Hall may become aggressive at work may be speculative, the rest of his
opinion is based on objective testing and a clinical interview.
II. Remand
The decision whether to remand for further proceedings or for immediate payment of
benefits is within the discretion of the court. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F .3d 172, 1178 (9'h Cir.
2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000). The issue tums on the utility offutiher proceedings.
7 - OPINION AND ORDER
•
A remand for an award of benefits is appropriate when no useful purpose would be served by
further administrative proceedings or when the record has been fully developed and the evidence
is insufficient to support the Commissioner's decision. Strauss v. Comm 'r, 635 F.3d 1135, 113839 (9'h Cir. 2011)(quoting Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (91h Cir. 2004)). The court
may not award benefits punitively, and must conduct a "credit-as-true" analysis to detetmine if a
claimant is disabled under the Act. Jd at 1138.
Under the "credit-as-true" doctrine, evidence should be credited and an immediate award
of benefits directed where: (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. Jd. The "credit-as-true"
doctrine is not a mandatmy mle in the Ninth Circuit, but leaves the court flexibility in
determining whether to enter an award of benefits upon reversing the Commissioner's decision.
Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 876 (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 871(9'h Cir.
2003)(en bane)). The reviewing court should decline to credit testimony when "outstanding
issues" remain. Luna v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1032, 1035 (9'h Cir. 2010).
Because the ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. Truhn's opinion, it
must be credited as a matter oflaw. Widmark 454 F.3d at 1069. Dr. Truhn's identification of
numerous "marked" limitations, particularly the inability to respond appropriately to supervision,
compels a finding of disability according to the testimony of the Vocational Expert. Tr. 67-68,
266.
8 - OPINION AL\fD ORDER
•
•
CONCLUSION
The ALJ's decision is not supp01ied by substantial evidence. This matter is reversed and
remanded for the calculation and award of benefits, and this matter is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this (<\'day of December, 2012.
/
\
\ /'j)//~f2
9 - 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?