Jesseka Betts v. Andrew Saul

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 10, 2023
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00084
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.B., Case No. 5:21-cv-00084-JWH-SHK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Commissioner of Social Security, JUDGE 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Joint Stipulation, 2 the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United 3 States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those 4 portions of the Report to which Defendant has objected. The Court ACCEPTS the 5 findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 6 The Court notes Defendant’s argument in the Objections that the Report and 7 Recommendation does not address all of the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s 8 subjective complaints of impairment. (ECF No. 25 at 2-7.) According to 9 Defendant, in addition to the reasons discussed in the Report and 10 Recommendation, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s subjective complaints because 11 (1) Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not supported by objective medical 12 evidence; (2) Plaintiff received only conservative treatment; and (3) Plaintiff did 13 not receive any specialized mental health care. (Id.) 14 Despite Defendant’s suggestion to the contrary, it is not clear from the ALJ’s 15 decision that she relied on the second and third purported reasons to support her 16 assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. (See ECF No. 25 at 5-6 (citing 17 ECF No. 17-3 at 21-23).) Even if the ALJ intended to rely on such reasoning, her 18 analysis was not “sufficiently specific to allow [the Court] to conclude the [ALJ] 19 rejected the claimant’s testimony on permissible grounds.” Rollins v. Massanari, 20 261 F.3d 853, 856–57 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 Finally, even crediting Defendant’s argument that the Report and 22 Recommendation did not address the ALJ’s reliance on a lack of objective medical 23 evidence to support Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, such reasoning, standing 24 alone, is not sufficient to support the ALJ’s decision. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 25 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005) (“an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective 26 complaints based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the 27 alleged severity” of the symptoms) (citations omitted). 1 For those reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 2 l. The Social Security Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this 3 | case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further 4 | proceedings. 5 2. Judgment shall issue accordingly. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 | Dated: April 10, 2023 “HM 9 HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28