1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX QUINTANA, JR., No. 1:19-cv-00814-DAD-EPG (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. Nos. 15, 26) 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Plaintiff Alex Quitana, Jr., proceeding in forma pauperis brings an action seeking judicial 19 review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying plaintiff’s application for 20 benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On November 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 23 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part 24 and denied in part and the Commissioner’s determination be reversed and the action be remanded 25 for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 26.) The findings and recommendations were 26 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 27 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. On 28 November 18, 2020, the Commissioner timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 28.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the 3 Commissioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by proper analysis. 5 ANALYSIS 6 In his objections, the Commissioner asserts the pending findings and recommendations 7 should not be adopted because (1) substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s 8 (“ALJ”) evaluation of the medical opinions of Dr. Aguilar, plaintiff’s treating doctor, and Dr. 9 Katzenberg, plaintiff’s examining doctor; and (2) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 10 evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective disability symptoms. (Doc. No. 28.) 11 A. The Medical Opinions of Dr. Aguilar and Dr. Katzenberg 12 The Commissioner points to evidence that the ALJ weighed and asks this court to 13 reconsider the pending findings and recommendations because, according to the Commissioner, 14 the “record as a whole” support’s the ALJ’s findings. (Id. at 2–5.) These arguments are 15 effectively the same as those originally raised by the Commissioner before the magistrate judge 16 (Doc. No. 19); were fully addressed by the pending findings and recommendations; and fail to 17 establish that the requisite high standard for rejecting a treating or examining doctor’s opinions 18 were met in this case. 19 The Ninth Circuit describes the standard used to evaluate the doctors’ medical opinions as 20 follows: “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so 21 long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques 22 and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” 23 Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted); Lester v. 24 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (describing the same 25 standard with respect to the opinion of an examining doctor.) “If a treating or examining doctor’s 26 opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing 27 specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” (Id.) 28 ///// 1 As addressed in the pending findings and recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge 2 determined both Dr. Aguilar’s and Dr. Katzenberg’s opinions were contradicted by other doctors 3 in the record, and thus the relevant inquiry was whether the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate 4 reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight” to the opinions of plaintiff’s 5 treating and examining doctors. (Doc. No. 26 at 2, 4.) After reviewing the administrative 6 transcript and record, the parties’ briefing, and holding a hearing, the assigned magistrate judge 7 determined that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial 8 evidence for disregarding those medical opinions. (Id. at 4–6.) 9 The objections attempt to use the deference a reviewing court applies to a review of an 10 ALJ decision to override the requisite “substantial evidence” showing needed to disregard the 11 medical opinions of treating and examining doctors. (See, e.g., id. at 3) (“Where there may be 12 more than one rational interpretation of the evidence, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” 13 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)). The objections’ main thrust is thus to 14 cast the evidence as being reasonably supportive of either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s 15 decision, and on this basis, the Commissioner urges this reviewing court to defer to the ALJ’s 16 determination. However, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “even if [the opinion of a treating 17 doctor is] contradicted by another doctor, [that opinion] can only be rejected for specific and 18 legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 19 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (citation and internal quotation 20 marks omitted.) Thus, even accepting the Commissioner’s argument—that there were rational 21 interpretations of the evidence in support of either affirming or reversing—this is not a basis upon 22 which to decline to adopt the findings and recommendations. An ALJ may only reject the 23 medical opinion of examining and treating doctor based upon specific and legitimate reasons 24 supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner has not made a showing or 25 provided a basis upon which the pending findings and recommendations should be rejected as to 26 the ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of plaintiff’s treating and examining doctors. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Allegations of Disabling Symptoms 2 The Commissioner again incorporates arguments that were previously rejected by the 3 pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 28 at 4–5.) Additionally, the objections 4 repeat the argument that when there is evidence on both sides of an issue, that the ALJ’s 5 judgment should stand. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 28 at 4) (“Moreover, ‘[i]f the evidence can 6 reasonably support either affirming or reversing, the reviewing court may not substitute its 7 judgment for that of the Commissioner.’ Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 523 8 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal punctuation and citation omitted).”) This argument too misses the mark 9 because it fails to address the relevant standard governing the resolution of the issue that is the 10 subject of the objection. The Ninth Circuit employs a “clear and convincing reasons” standard 11 when reviewing an ALJ’s decision to reject a plaintiff’s allegations of their symptoms. See, e.g., 12 Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2014); Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 13 670–71 (9th Cir. 2012).
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX QUINTANA, JR., No. 1:19-cv-00814-DAD-EPG (SS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. Nos. 15, 26) 15 Defendant. 16
17 18 Plaintiff Alex Quitana, Jr., proceeding in forma pauperis brings an action seeking judicial 19 review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying plaintiff’s application for 20 benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States 21 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On November 4, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and 23 recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part 24 and denied in part and the Commissioner’s determination be reversed and the action be remanded 25 for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 26.) The findings and recommendations were 26 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 27 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. On 28 November 18, 2020, the Commissioner timely filed his objections. (Doc. No. 28.) 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the 3 Commissioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 4 the record and by proper analysis. 5 ANALYSIS 6 In his objections, the Commissioner asserts the pending findings and recommendations 7 should not be adopted because (1) substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s 8 (“ALJ”) evaluation of the medical opinions of Dr. Aguilar, plaintiff’s treating doctor, and Dr. 9 Katzenberg, plaintiff’s examining doctor; and (2) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s 10 evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective disability symptoms. (Doc. No. 28.) 11 A. The Medical Opinions of Dr. Aguilar and Dr. Katzenberg 12 The Commissioner points to evidence that the ALJ weighed and asks this court to 13 reconsider the pending findings and recommendations because, according to the Commissioner, 14 the “record as a whole” support’s the ALJ’s findings. (Id. at 2–5.) These arguments are 15 effectively the same as those originally raised by the Commissioner before the magistrate judge 16 (Doc. No. 19); were fully addressed by the pending findings and recommendations; and fail to 17 establish that the requisite high standard for rejecting a treating or examining doctor’s opinions 18 were met in this case. 19 The Ninth Circuit describes the standard used to evaluate the doctors’ medical opinions as 20 follows: “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so 21 long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques 22 and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” 23 Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted); Lester v. 24 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (describing the same 25 standard with respect to the opinion of an examining doctor.) “If a treating or examining doctor’s 26 opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing 27 specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” (Id.) 28 ///// 1 As addressed in the pending findings and recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge 2 determined both Dr. Aguilar’s and Dr. Katzenberg’s opinions were contradicted by other doctors 3 in the record, and thus the relevant inquiry was whether the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate 4 reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight” to the opinions of plaintiff’s 5 treating and examining doctors. (Doc. No. 26 at 2, 4.) After reviewing the administrative 6 transcript and record, the parties’ briefing, and holding a hearing, the assigned magistrate judge 7 determined that the ALJ failed to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial 8 evidence for disregarding those medical opinions. (Id. at 4–6.) 9 The objections attempt to use the deference a reviewing court applies to a review of an 10 ALJ decision to override the requisite “substantial evidence” showing needed to disregard the 11 medical opinions of treating and examining doctors. (See, e.g., id. at 3) (“Where there may be 12 more than one rational interpretation of the evidence, the ALJ’s conclusion must be upheld.” 13 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)). The objections’ main thrust is thus to 14 cast the evidence as being reasonably supportive of either affirming or reversing the ALJ’s 15 decision, and on this basis, the Commissioner urges this reviewing court to defer to the ALJ’s 16 determination. However, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “even if [the opinion of a treating 17 doctor is] contradicted by another doctor, [that opinion] can only be rejected for specific and 18 legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 19 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (citation and internal quotation 20 marks omitted.) Thus, even accepting the Commissioner’s argument—that there were rational 21 interpretations of the evidence in support of either affirming or reversing—this is not a basis upon 22 which to decline to adopt the findings and recommendations. An ALJ may only reject the 23 medical opinion of examining and treating doctor based upon specific and legitimate reasons 24 supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Commissioner has not made a showing or 25 provided a basis upon which the pending findings and recommendations should be rejected as to 26 the ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of plaintiff’s treating and examining doctors. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Allegations of Disabling Symptoms 2 The Commissioner again incorporates arguments that were previously rejected by the 3 pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 28 at 4–5.) Additionally, the objections 4 repeat the argument that when there is evidence on both sides of an issue, that the ALJ’s 5 judgment should stand. (See, e.g., Doc. No. 28 at 4) (“Moreover, ‘[i]f the evidence can 6 reasonably support either affirming or reversing, the reviewing court may not substitute its 7 judgment for that of the Commissioner.’ Gutierrez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 523 8 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal punctuation and citation omitted).”) This argument too misses the mark 9 because it fails to address the relevant standard governing the resolution of the issue that is the 10 subject of the objection. The Ninth Circuit employs a “clear and convincing reasons” standard 11 when reviewing an ALJ’s decision to reject a plaintiff’s allegations of their symptoms. See, e.g., 12 Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2014); Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 13 670–71 (9th Cir. 2012). In his objections, the Commissioner presents no argument that this 14 standard was met here, instead he argues only that the lower “substantial evidence” standard has 15 been met. 16 Thus, the findings and recommendations correctly concluded that the ALJ erred1 by not 17 providing clear and convincing evidence for rejecting plaintiff’s account of his symptoms. (Doc. 18 No. 26 at 8.) 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, 21 1. The findings and recommendations entered on November 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 26), 22 are adopted in full; 23 1 Furthermore, this error was compounded because the ALJ had incorrectly disregarded 24 plaintiff’s treating and examining doctors’ medical opinions. Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of his own disability were further incorrectly disregarded by the ALJ. According to the Social 25 Security governing regulations, an ALJ must consider how consistent plaintiff’s statements are with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). If a plaintiff’s statements about 26 their subjective symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical 27 evidence and other evidence” then the ALJ can determine that they limit a plaintiff’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). 28 1 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 15) is granted in part and 2 denied in part; and 3 3. The decision of the ALJ is reversed and this matter is remanded for further 4 administrative proceedings consistent with the findings and recommendations and 5 this order adopting them. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a " 7 Li. wh F Dated: _ August 17, 2021 wea rE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28