Larson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER: The Court adopts in part and does not adopt in part Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation 21 . Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 4/28/2015 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

NICOLE LARSON,
Plaintiff,

No 6:13-cv-01096-ST

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [21] on February 17,
2015, in which she recommends that this Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision to deny
Disability Insurance Benefits to Plaintiff Nicole Larson and remand the case for an award of
benefits. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b).
Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &
1 – ORDER

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th
Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Defendant raises the following objections to the Findings and Recommendation: (1)
Judge Stewart exceeded the scope of judicial review; (2) Judge Stewart relied on an improper
standard for evaluating the medical opinions; and (3) awarding benefits is not appropriate, even
if the ALJ committed harmful error.
I have carefully considered Defendant’s objections. I adopt Judge Stewart’s Findings and
Recommendation, except that I remand the case for further proceedings and I clarify the proper
standard of review for the medical opinions of Dr. Torguson and Dr. Phillips. I have also
reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate
Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
I agree with Judge Stewart’s finding that the new medical evidence, Dr. Lippincott’s
report and diagnosis, deprived the ALJ’s decision of substantial evidence. However, I believe
that further proceedings would be useful. See Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d
1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Administrative proceedings are generally useful where the record
has not been fully developed, there is a need to resolve conflicts and ambiguities, or the
presentation of further evidence ... may well prove enlightening in light of the passage of time.”)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). I remand the case for the ALJ to conduct a new
hearing, further develop the record, include Dr. Lippincott’s diagnosis, and issue a new decision.
As to the proper standard of review for the medical opinions of Dr. Torguson and Dr.
Phillips, Defendant correctly argues that the ALJ was required to provide “specific and
legitimate” reasons for rejecting their opinions, not “clear and convincing” reasons. Dr.

2 – ORDER

Torguson and Dr. Phillips are treating physicians. The opinions of treating physicians should be
given more weight than the opinions of physicians who do not treat the claimant. Orn v. Astrue,
495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (as
amended)). Where the treating physician's opinion is not contradicted by another physician, it
may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, Dr. Torguson’s and Dr. Phillips’
opinions were contradicted by other physicians in the record. In such a situation, the ALJ was
required to provide “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the
record in order to reject the treating physicians’ opinions. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts in part and does not adopt in part Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings
& Recommendation [21]. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision is reversed and
remanded for further administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of

, 2015.

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

3 – ORDER