Ellen G. v. Saul
| Decision Date | 11 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. ED CV 18-00112-DFM |
| Citation | 404 F.Supp.3d 1261 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | ELLEN G., Plaintiff, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Monica Perales, Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA, for Plaintiff.
Assistant US Attorney LA-CV, AUSA-Office of US Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Assistant US Attorney LA-SSA, Office of the General Counsel for Social Security Adm., Paul H Sachelari, SAUSA-Social Security Administration, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
Ellen G. ("Plaintiff") appeals from the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB").1 The Commissioner's decision is reversed and this case is remanded for an award of benefits.
In 2011, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB alleging disability beginning on September 16, 2006. See Dkt. 17, Administrative Record ("AR") 144-45. After her application was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). See AR 72, 82, 91-92. In October 2013, after a hearing before an ALJ, Plaintiff received an unfavorable decision. See AR 25-39. On June 17, 2016, this Court remanded for further proceedings because the ALJ failed to consider whether Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome was a severe impairment. See AR 848-53.
On August 23, 2017, a second ALJ held a hearing at which Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, and a vocational expert testified. See AR 823-45. The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on September 21, 2017. See AR 802-16.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, osteoarthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, obesity, degenerative joint disease of the knees bilaterally, history of right wrist fracture, history of fracture of the cuboid bone, bilateral shoulder impingement, degenerative joint disease of the carpus, mildly displaced fracture of the distal radium, osteoarthritis of the first meta joint, degenerative disc disease, and neuropathy. See id. The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform a range of light work. See AR 810. Based on the evidence of record, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work as a data systems analyst and contract clerk/consultant technician through her date last insured ("DLI") of December 31, 2011. See AR 816. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff was not disabled at any time between the alleged onset date and the DLI. See id.
On November 21, 2017, the ALJ's decision on remand became the final decision of the Commissioner. See Dkt. 23, Joint Stipulation ("JS") at 3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.984 (). This action followed. See Dkt. 1.
The parties dispute whether the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion of treating neurologist Dr. Jack Florin. See JS at 5.
Three types of physicians may offer opinions in Social Security cases: those who treated the plaintiff, those who examined but did not treat the plaintiff, and those who did neither. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to more weight than an examining physician's opinion, which is generally entitled to more weight than a nonexamining physician's. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014).
When a treating or examining physician's opinion is uncontroverted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for "clear and convincing reasons." Carmickle v. Comm'r, SSA, 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Where such an opinion is contradicted, the ALJ may reject it for "specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Id. The ALJ can meet this burden by "setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings." Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986). The weight accorded to a physician's opinion depends on whether it is consistent with the record and accompanied by adequate explanation, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and the doctor's specialty, among other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).
From October 1999 to May 2017, Dr. Florin treated Plaintiff for chronic migraine headaches and cervical dystonia. See AR 410-38, 1044-46, 1070. The record contains several opinions from Dr. Florin. Of most importance here, Dr. Florin completed an RFC questionnaire concerning Plaintiff's headaches on January 17, 2012, less than a month after Plaintiff's DLI. See AR 410-14. Dr. Florin diagnosed Plaintiff with chronic migraine and indicated that Plaintiff had 20 headache days per month. See AR 410. Plaintiff's headache symptoms included throbbing and constant pain at severity level 10 of 10, vertigo, nausea and vomiting, malaise, photosensitivity, visual disturbances, mood changes, mental confusion, inability to concentrate, and tenderness. See AR 410-11. Dr. Florin indicated that Frovatriptan reduced Plaintiff's migraine pain to severity level 7 of 10, and that cold packs and lying in a dark room also improved symptoms. See AR 411. Dr. Florin opined that Plaintiff's headaches precluded her from performing basic work activities, that Plaintiff was unable to work and could not perform even low stress jobs due to her medical issues, and that she had limitations in her abilities to sit, stand, walk, lift, bend, stoop, crouch, and use her arms, hands and fingers, as well as difficulties with vision, temperature, humidity, and noise. See AR 412-13.
In 2017, Dr. Florin submitted answers to interrogatories from Plaintiff's counsel in which he indicated that, in his professional opinion, there was a degree of probability that the objective medical findings identified in his January 17, 2012 report reached back to Plaintiff's physical state before December 31, 2011. See AR 1733. He noted that her chronic migraines had caused Plaintiff to be "severely disabled, despite multiple preventatives." Id.
The record also contains a neurological re-evaluation summary from Dr. Florin dated May 13, 2013 in which Dr. Florin diagnosed Plaintiff with chronic migraine, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome, noted that she had 20 headache days out of 30 and was "failing multiple preventative medications including Botox," and opined that "[h]er migraine disability is such that she is unable to work." AR 1070.
The ALJ gave three reasons for giving Dr. Florin's 2012 and 2013 opinions "little weight." First, she stated that those opinions "were based, in part, on objective evidence available after the date last insured." AR 814. Second, she stated that Dr. Florin's treatment notes from the relevant period— i.e., September 16, 2006 through December 31, 2011—"are minimal and do not support his opinion." Id. Finally, the ALJ faulted Dr. Florin for not explaining "why her headaches prevented her from working after she was laid off, but not prior to that time." Id.
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to articulate specific and legitimate reasons for discounting or rejecting Dr. Florin's opinions. See JS at 5-15.
As an initial matter, the ALJ was not entitled to discount or reject Dr. Florin's opinions solely because they were rendered after the DLI. While the ALJ must consider only impairments Plaintiff had before the DLI, " ‘medical evaluations made after the expiration of a claimant's insured status are relevant to an evaluation of the pre-expiration condition.’ " Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 832 (9th Cir. 1995) (as amended) (quoting Smith v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th Cir. 1988) ). "It is obvious that medical reports are inevitably rendered retrospectively and should not be disregarded solely on that basis." Smith, 849 F.2d at 1225. On the other hand, an ALJ may reject a medical opinion, even that of a treating physician, that "d[oes] not relate plaintiff's current symptoms back to the relevant time period."
Morgan v. Colvin, No. 12-01235, 2013 WL 6074119, at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2013) ; see also Shuff v. Berryhill, No. 16-05579, 2017 WL 4224423, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 22, 2017) ().
Little in the record supports the ALJ's finding that Dr. Florin's critical January 17, 2012 opinion was based, in part or otherwise, on objective evidence available after the DLI. See AR 814. The only medical record from that period is Dr. Florin's own office visit notes from January 17, 2012, in which he notes that Plaintiff presented the "same pain pattern from last year." AR 415. Moreover, Dr. Florin affirmed in his response to counsel's interrogatory that his January 17, 2012 opinion extended to Plaintiff's condition before December 31, 2011. See AR 1733.
Nor is there substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Florin's records from the relevant period were "minimal" and did not support his opinion. In fact, Dr. Florin's treatment notes during the relevant period support his January 2012 notation that Plaintiff experienced 20 headache days per month. See AR 419 ( intractable migraine occurring 15 to 20 days per month), 426 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Saul, Case No. SACV 19-0002-AS
...'alone establishes that [Revels] is entitled to benefits.'" (quoting Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1041 n.12)); Ellen G. v. Saul, 404 F. Supp. 3d 1261, 1268-69 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (remanding for award of benefits because record unambiguously showed that plaintiff would be found disabled if imprope......