Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: March 10, 2022
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00479
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Oscar Salazar, No. CV-20-00479-TUC-DCB (JR)

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, pursuant to 16 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), 17 Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). She issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on February 7, 18 2022. (R&R (Doc. 27)). She recommends reversing the denial of benefits and remanding 19 the case to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for an award of disability benefits. The 20 Court adopts this recommendation. 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R by a Magistrate Judge, are 23 set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 24 district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 25 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 26 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make 27 a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” 28 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no 1 objections are filed, the district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. 2 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 3 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). 4 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file 5 written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 6 (party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, 7 written objections). To date, no objections have been filed. 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 The Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau, United States Magistrate Judge, considered 10 only the issue of whether the case should be remanded for further development of the 11 administrative record or an award of benefits. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the 12 Commissioner of Social Security, agree that the ALJ erred when evaluating the medical 13 opinions from Brenda Wells, M.D., and Rodric Falcon, N.P, who provided treatment for 14 Plaintiff’s mental impairments of anxiety and depression. The Plaintiff also has severe 15 impairments of degenerative disc disease, dysfunction of the joints, carpal tunnel 16 syndrome, and osteoarthritis. 17 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that remand for benefits is 18 appropriate because the record has been fully developed and further administrative 19 proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient 20 reasons for rejecting these treating physicians’ evidence, and if it is credited as true, the 21 ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand. (R&R (Doc. 27) 7-9 22 (relying on Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir. 2014)). 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to 24 those portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge 25 of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 26 proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that 27 no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. 28 Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives 1 right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing 2 Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely 3 objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 4 the record in order to accept the recommendation). 5 While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court 6 nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. 7 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 8 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); 9 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will 10 not ordinarily waive question of law but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding 11 waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear 12 error in law or fact. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 13 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider matters delegated to 14 magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to law)). The 15 Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court remands this case to the ALJ for 17 an award of benefits. 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is adopted as the 20 opinion of the Court. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Decision of the Commissioner for Social || Security is reversed, and the case is remanded for an award of benefits. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment accordingly. 5 Dated this 10th day of March, 2022. 6 Y= SY ° Honorabje David C. But 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-