1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY M., Case No.: 22-CV-1649-DMS-KSC
12 Plaintiff, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 13 v. TO: (1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 18]; AND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) REMAND THE CASE FOR Defendant. FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE 16 PROCEEDINGS 17 18 19 Plaintiff Mary M. seeks review of defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner 20 of Social Security’s, denial of plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. The Court 21 directed the parties to explore informal resolution of the matter through the meet-and- 22 confer process, but they did not resolve the case on their own. Doc. Nos. 12, 13. Thereafter, 23 plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant filed a Response Requesting 24 Remand, and plaintiff filed a Reply. Doc. Nos. 18, 20, 24. Having considered the parties’ 25 submissions and the Administrative Record (Doc. No. 10 “AR”), the undersigned submits 26 this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana M. Sabraw pursuant 27 to 28 U.S.C. § 636. For the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS District 28 1 Judge Sabraw DENY plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and REMAND the case 2 for further administrative proceedings. 3 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 On January 30, 2019, plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging 5 disability since February 1, 2012. AR 9.1 The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 6 denied the claim initially and upon reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff then requested a hearing 7 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held on February 9, 2021. Id. The 8 ALJ questioned plaintiff and a vocational expert (“VE”) at the hearing. Id. On May 11, 9 2021, after reviewing the documentary evidence in the record and hearing the witnesses’ 10 testimony, the ALJ ultimately concluded plaintiff was not disabled. AR 9-19. The Appeals 11 Counsel denied plaintiff’s request for review and this case followed. AR 1-5; Dkt. No. 1. 12 II. SUMMARY OF ALJ’S DECISION 13 The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. 14 § 404.1520. At step one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 15 activity since June 11, 2012, her alleged onset date, through December 31, 2015, her date 16 last insured. AR 11. 17 At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff had the following severe medically determinable 18 impairments through December 31, 2015: osteoarthiritis of the bilateral knees (left greater 19 than right), disorders of the bilateral ankles, cervical degenerative disc disease, carpal 20 tunnel syndrome, disorders of the bilateral shoulders, and migraine headaches. AR 11-13. 21 At step three, the ALJ found plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 22 impairments that met or medically equaled those in the SSA’s Listing of Impairments. AR 23 13-15. 24 25
26 27 1 The Court’s citations to the AR use the original pagination rather than the page numbers designated by the Court’s case management/electronic case filing system (“CM/ECF”). For 28 1 Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determined plaintiff had the residual 2 functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), 3 except: 4 [she] cannot crawl and cannot climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. She can occasionally stoop, crouch, kneel, and climb ramps or 5 stairs. She can occasionally reach overhead. She can frequently 6 reach below shoulder level, handle, and finger.
7 AR 15. 8 At step four, the ALJ concluded plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant 9 work as an attorney and did not proceed to step five. AR 19. 10 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 11 The Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether the ALJ applied the 12 proper legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 42 13 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). Substantial 14 evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 15 support a conclusion.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotations 16 omitted), superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in Thomas v. Saul, 830 F. 17 App’x 196, 198 (9th Cir. 2020). It is “more than a mere scintilla but, less than a 18 preponderance . . . .” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 19 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)). 20 IV. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff alleges defendant made nine errors in denying her claim: 22 (1) The ALJ violated plaintiff’s due process rights to reopen her prior applications despite repeated requests; 23
24 (2) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment; 25
26 (3) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff’s migraine headaches were a severe impairment yet did not result in any functional limitations; 27
28 1 (4) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff’s severe impairments did not meet or equal the medical listings; 2
3 (5) The ALJ erred in failing to give specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians; 4
5 (6) The ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was not supported by substantial evidence from the record; 6
7 (7) The ALJ erred by discounting third party statements;
8 (8) The ALJ’s reasons for discrediting plaintiff’s symptoms of disabling 9 pain were legally insufficient;
10 (9) The ALJ failed to resolve conflicts in the testimony of the VE. 11 Doc. No. 18 at 5-6. 12 Defendant responded requesting the Court “enter a final judgment in favor of 13 plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the decision of the Commissioner.” Doc. No. 20 14 at 2. Defendant asks the Court to remand the case under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 15 § 405(g) in order for the SSA to: 16 revaluate impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation process; 17 reevaluate the residual functional capacity; if warranted, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to determine whether plaintiff could perform past 18 relevant work or whether there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 19 national economy that plaintiff could perform with her residual functional capacity; and take further action as necessary to complete the administrative 20 record and resolve the above issues. 21
22 Id. 23 Plaintiff opposes defendant’s request, arguing the Court should remand her case only 24 to award benefits because “a remand to complete the record and resolve issues is 25 unnecessary.” Doc. No. 24 at 11-12. 26 The Court “may remand a case under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after 27 passing on its merits and issuing a judgment, affirming, reversing, or modifying” 28 1 the ALJ failed to meet his burden at step two and in evaluating the RFC. Doc. No. 20 at 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY M., Case No.: 22-CV-1649-DMS-KSC
12 Plaintiff, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION 13 v. TO: (1) DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 18]; AND Commissioner of Social Security, 15 (2) REMAND THE CASE FOR Defendant. FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE 16 PROCEEDINGS 17 18 19 Plaintiff Mary M. seeks review of defendant Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner 20 of Social Security’s, denial of plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. The Court 21 directed the parties to explore informal resolution of the matter through the meet-and- 22 confer process, but they did not resolve the case on their own. Doc. Nos. 12, 13. Thereafter, 23 plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant filed a Response Requesting 24 Remand, and plaintiff filed a Reply. Doc. Nos. 18, 20, 24. Having considered the parties’ 25 submissions and the Administrative Record (Doc. No. 10 “AR”), the undersigned submits 26 this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Dana M. Sabraw pursuant 27 to 28 U.S.C. § 636. For the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS District 28 1 Judge Sabraw DENY plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and REMAND the case 2 for further administrative proceedings. 3 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 On January 30, 2019, plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging 5 disability since February 1, 2012. AR 9.1 The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) 6 denied the claim initially and upon reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff then requested a hearing 7 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held on February 9, 2021. Id. The 8 ALJ questioned plaintiff and a vocational expert (“VE”) at the hearing. Id. On May 11, 9 2021, after reviewing the documentary evidence in the record and hearing the witnesses’ 10 testimony, the ALJ ultimately concluded plaintiff was not disabled. AR 9-19. The Appeals 11 Counsel denied plaintiff’s request for review and this case followed. AR 1-5; Dkt. No. 1. 12 II. SUMMARY OF ALJ’S DECISION 13 The ALJ followed the five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. 14 § 404.1520. At step one, the ALJ found plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 15 activity since June 11, 2012, her alleged onset date, through December 31, 2015, her date 16 last insured. AR 11. 17 At step two, the ALJ found plaintiff had the following severe medically determinable 18 impairments through December 31, 2015: osteoarthiritis of the bilateral knees (left greater 19 than right), disorders of the bilateral ankles, cervical degenerative disc disease, carpal 20 tunnel syndrome, disorders of the bilateral shoulders, and migraine headaches. AR 11-13. 21 At step three, the ALJ found plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 22 impairments that met or medically equaled those in the SSA’s Listing of Impairments. AR 23 13-15. 24 25
26 27 1 The Court’s citations to the AR use the original pagination rather than the page numbers designated by the Court’s case management/electronic case filing system (“CM/ECF”). For 28 1 Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ determined plaintiff had the residual 2 functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), 3 except: 4 [she] cannot crawl and cannot climb ropes, ladders, or scaffolds. She can occasionally stoop, crouch, kneel, and climb ramps or 5 stairs. She can occasionally reach overhead. She can frequently 6 reach below shoulder level, handle, and finger.
7 AR 15. 8 At step four, the ALJ concluded plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant 9 work as an attorney and did not proceed to step five. AR 19. 10 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 11 The Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether the ALJ applied the 12 proper legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 42 13 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1214 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). Substantial 14 evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 15 support a conclusion.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotations 16 omitted), superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in Thomas v. Saul, 830 F. 17 App’x 196, 198 (9th Cir. 2020). It is “more than a mere scintilla but, less than a 18 preponderance . . . .” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 19 Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)). 20 IV. DISCUSSION 21 Plaintiff alleges defendant made nine errors in denying her claim: 22 (1) The ALJ violated plaintiff’s due process rights to reopen her prior applications despite repeated requests; 23
24 (2) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment; 25
26 (3) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff’s migraine headaches were a severe impairment yet did not result in any functional limitations; 27
28 1 (4) The ALJ erred in finding plaintiff’s severe impairments did not meet or equal the medical listings; 2
3 (5) The ALJ erred in failing to give specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians; 4
5 (6) The ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was not supported by substantial evidence from the record; 6
7 (7) The ALJ erred by discounting third party statements;
8 (8) The ALJ’s reasons for discrediting plaintiff’s symptoms of disabling 9 pain were legally insufficient;
10 (9) The ALJ failed to resolve conflicts in the testimony of the VE. 11 Doc. No. 18 at 5-6. 12 Defendant responded requesting the Court “enter a final judgment in favor of 13 plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the decision of the Commissioner.” Doc. No. 20 14 at 2. Defendant asks the Court to remand the case under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 15 § 405(g) in order for the SSA to: 16 revaluate impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation process; 17 reevaluate the residual functional capacity; if warranted, obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to determine whether plaintiff could perform past 18 relevant work or whether there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the 19 national economy that plaintiff could perform with her residual functional capacity; and take further action as necessary to complete the administrative 20 record and resolve the above issues. 21
22 Id. 23 Plaintiff opposes defendant’s request, arguing the Court should remand her case only 24 to award benefits because “a remand to complete the record and resolve issues is 25 unnecessary.” Doc. No. 24 at 11-12. 26 The Court “may remand a case under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after 27 passing on its merits and issuing a judgment, affirming, reversing, or modifying” 28 1 the ALJ failed to meet his burden at step two and in evaluating the RFC. Doc. No. 20 at 2. 2 After reviewing the ALJ’s decision and AR, the undersigned agrees and finds remand may 3 correct defects in the decision and may affect findings at subsequent steps. The Court, 4 therefore, recommends the case be remanded in order for defendant to reevaluate plaintiff’s 5 claim starting at step two. See Washington v. Barnhardt, 285 F. Supp. 2d 897 (S.D. Tex. 6 Mar. 4, 2003) (granting the SSA’s opposed request to remand where the SSA “wishes to 7 avail the [ALJ] an opportunity to reevaluate [the plaintiff’s RFC] . . . and review evidence 8 with respect to the date of the onset of her alleged disability.”); Vazquez v. Comm’r of Soc. 9 Sec. Admin.., No. CIV 14-1499 (SCC). 2016 WL 3199434, at *2 (D. P.R. Jun. 7, 2016) 10 (“In cases that warrant compliance with requirements of substantial evidence rules, 11 including the need for further RFC findings, sentence four remand is in order.”). 12 Plaintiff also requests the Court address “the issue of reopening prior applications,” 13 referring to applications for disability benefits filed in 2015 and 2017. Doc. No. 24 at 12. 14 Plaintiff contends she requested the SSA reopen her prior disability benefits applications 15 in connection with her 2019 application. See AR 54 (plaintiff testifies her requests to 16 reopen prior applications are missing from the AR and will be submitted); AR 129 (“The 17 ALJ decision failed to reopen prior applications for disability despite repeated requests by 18 claimant.”); AR 130 (“In [plaintiff’s] 2017 and 2019 initial online SSA disability 19 application documents, she requested re-opening of all prior SSA disability applications. 20 (1A/2, 2A). Based upon these facts and SSA regulations, [plaintiff] respectfully requests 21 that SSA re-open her prior application in January 2015 based upon good cause i.e. new and 22 material evidence.”). Defendant does not respond to this argument. 23 The SSA may reopen a case within four years of the initial determination date upon 24 a good cause showing, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.989. 20 C.F.R. § 404.988(b) Here, 25 there is no evidence in the record to suggest the SSA responded to plaintiff’s request to 26 reopen her prior applications. The Court, therefore, recommends upon remand the SSA 27 also be directed to evaluate whether to reopen plaintiff’s 2015 and 2017 disability 28 applications. 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS District Judge Sabraw 3 || DENY plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement, reverse the SSA’s final decision, and 4 ||REMAND the case for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Report and 5 || Recommendation. 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report and 7 |{Recommendation must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 8 || November 27, 2023. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and 9 || Recommendation.” 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a reply to the objections shall be filed with the 11 |}Court and served on all parties no later than December 4, 2023. The failure to file 12 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal 13 || of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) 14 || Dated: November 9, 2023 Yy JA 15 Mfc We 16 Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28