Julieta Alvarez v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Ninth Circuit

Julieta Alvarez v. Carolyn W. Colvin

562 F. App'x 553

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2014

Docket12-56612

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 562 F. App'x 553 (Julieta Alvarez v. Carolyn W. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Julieta Alvarez v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 562 F. App'x 553 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julieta Alvarez appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. .

The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Alvarez’s treating physician, Dr. Larsen, while giving more weight to the findings of Dr. Rosco and Dr. Rosenberg, because the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998). The ALJ explained that Dr. Larsen’s opinion conflicted with evidence in the record, while the opinions of Dr. Rosco and Dr. Rosenberg were consistent with each other and with the evidence in the record. Because the ALJ is obliged to make a disability determination based on social security law, the ALJ was not bound by Dr. Larsen’s finding that Alvarez was temporarily totally disabled for purposes of California workers’ compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. We also reject Alvarez’s argument that the ALJ was obliged to credit Dr. Larsen’s reports because he credited Dr. Pollis’s reports. Among other reasons, Dr. Pollis’s reports were substantially different than Dr. Larsen’s reports.

The ALJ’s determination of the onset date of Alvarez’s disability is not supported by substantial evidence. At an administrative hearing on May 23, 2011, the ALJ stated that if he credited the assessment of Alvarez performed by Dr. Pollis in February 2011, Alvarez was disabled as of February 2011 and had been disabled for two years prior to that date, so that her disability onset date was February 2009. In his opinion, however, the ALJ credited Dr. Pollis’s report but concluded that the disability onset date was February 2011. The ALJ did not explain the inconsistency between this date and his prior opinion that the onset date was February 2009; nor did he call a medical expert to resolve the ambiguity in the record. See Armstrong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 160 *554 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that Social Security regulations require an ALJ to “call a medical expert to assist in determining the onset date” of disability “where a record is ambiguous as to the onset date”). We therefore remand for the ALJ to determine the correct disability onset date based on evidence in the record and, if necessary, the assistance of a medical expert.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Julieta Alvarez appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. .

The ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Alvarez’s treating physician, Dr. Larsen, while giving more weight to the findings of Dr. Rosco and Dr. Rosenberg, because the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.1998). The ALJ explained that Dr. Larsen’s opinion conflicted with evidence in the record, while the opinions of Dr. Rosco and Dr. Rosenberg were consistent with each other and with the evidence in the record. Because the ALJ is obliged to make a disability determination based on social security law, the ALJ was not bound by Dr. Larsen’s finding that Alvarez was temporarily totally disabled for purposes of California workers’ compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. We also reject Alvarez’s argument that the ALJ was obliged to credit Dr. Larsen’s reports because he credited Dr. Pollis’s reports. Among other reasons, Dr. Pollis’s reports were substantially different than Dr. Larsen’s reports.

The ALJ’s determination of the onset date of Alvarez’s disability is not supported by substantial evidence. At an administrative hearing on May 23, 2011, the ALJ stated that if he credited the assessment of Alvarez performed by Dr. Pollis in February 2011, Alvarez was disabled as of February 2011 and had been disabled for two years prior to that date, so that her disability onset date was February 2009. In his opinion, however, the ALJ credited Dr. Pollis’s report but concluded that the disability onset date was February 2011. The ALJ did not explain the inconsistency between this date and his prior opinion that the onset date was February 2009; nor did he call a medical expert to resolve the ambiguity in the record. See Armstrong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 160 *554 F.3d 587, 590 (9th Cir.1998) (noting that Social Security regulations require an ALJ to “call a medical expert to assist in determining the onset date” of disability “where a record is ambiguous as to the onset date”). We therefore remand for the ALJ to determine the correct disability onset date based on evidence in the record and, if necessary, the assistance of a medical expert.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

562 F. App'x 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julieta-alvarez-v-carolyn-w-colvin-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack