Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01263/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01263-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0205 Appointment of Surgeon General

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE A. MAC EWEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1263-JLS (MDD)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE

DENIED AND THAT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE

GRANTED.

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

I. Introduction

On June 11, 2010, Dale Mac Ewan (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint challenging part of the

May 9, 2008, decision of Administrative Law Judge Jerry F. Muskrat (“ALJ”). (Doc. No. 1). That

decision found that Plaintiff was disabled between October 19, 2005 and January 8, 2007, and

granted benefits accordingly, but found that after January 8, 2007, Plaintiff was no longer disabled

and thus no longer eligible for benefits. Id. On December 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment, asserting that the ALJ’s decision mischaracterized the record and improperly

disregarded evidence. (Doc. No. 12). On March 2, 2011, Defendant filed a Cross Motion for

Summary Judgment, asserting that the ALJ’s decision was accurate and well-supported, and

should be upheld. (Doc. No. 18). On the same day, Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. No. 19). On March 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s

Response. (Doc. No. 21). 

- 1 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Factual Background

On October 19, 2005, Plaintiff was involved in a motorcycle accident. (Doc. No. 12). 

Plaintiff suffered multiple fractures, a perforated colon, and amputation of his left leg below the

knee. Id. Prior to the accident, Plaintiff had worked as a forklift driver, a warehouseman, a plant

maintenance worker at a pinball machine company, a draftsman, and various jobs through a

temporary worker agency. Id. After his accident, Plaintiff has not worked, though he twice

attempted to do so. Id.

Plaintiff has undergone several surgeries since his accident. Id. He is currently taking

OxyContin and anti-nausea medication. Id. Plaintiff contends that he continues to suffer from

nausea, and pain in his lower abdomen, lower back, leg, arm, as well as “phantom pain” from his

amputation. (A.R. at 47, 54-55). 

III. Legal Standard

The supplemental security income program established by Title XVI of the Act provides

benefits to disabled persons without substantial resources and little income. 42 U.S.C. § 1383. To

qualify, a claimant must establish an inability to engage in “substantial gainful activity” because of

a “medically determinable physical or mental impairment” that “has lasted or can be expected to

last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(A). The

disabling impairment must be so severe that, considering age, education, and work experience, the

claimant cannot engage is any kind of substantial gainful work that exists in the national economy. 

42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(B).

The Commissioner makes this assessment through a five-step analysis. First, the claimant

must currently be not working. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b). Second, the claimant must have a

“severe” impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). Third, the medical evidence of the claimant’s

impairment is compared to a list of impairments that are presumed severe enough to preclude

work. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). If the claimant’s impairment meets or equals one of the listed

impairments, benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d). Fourth, if the claimant can do his past

work, benefits are denied. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e). Fifth, if the claimant cannot do his past work

and, considering the claimant’s age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,

- 2 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 2 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cannot do other work that exists in the national economy, benefits are awarded. 20 C.F.R. §

416.920(f). The last two steps of the analysis are required by statute. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a)(3)(B).

 Section 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, through Section 405(g) of the Act, allows 

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final agency decision of the Commissioner. 42

U.S.C. §§ 1383(c)(3), 405(g). The scope of judicial review is limited, however, and the

Commissioner’s denial of benefits “will be disturbed only if it is not supported by substantial

evidence or is based on legal error.” Brawner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 839

F.2d 432, 433(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Green v. Heckler, 803 F.2d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1986)).

Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less than a preponderance. 

Sandqathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). “[I]t is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v.

Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record as a whole,

weighing both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s conclusions.

Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576, (9th Cir. 1988). If the

evidence supports more than one rational interpretation, the court must uphold the ALJ’s decision. 

Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). When the evidence is inconclusive,

“questions of credibility and resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the

Secretary.” Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982). 

The ALJ has a special duty in social security cases to fully and fairly develop the record in

order to make an informed decision on a claimant’s entitlement to disability benefits. DeLorme v.

Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991). Because disability hearings are not adversarial in

nature, the ALJ must “inform himself about the facts relevant to his decision,” even if the claimant

is represented by counsel. Id. (quoting Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 471 n.1 (1983)).

Even if the reviewing courts finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

conclusions, the court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to apply the proper legal

standards in weighing the evidence and reaching his or her decision. Benitez v. Califano, 573 F.2d

653, 655 (9th Cir. 1978). Section 405(g) permits a court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying

or reversing the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The reviewing court may also

- 3 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 3 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

remand the matter to the Social Security Administrator for further proceedings. Id. 

IV. Discussion 

A. The ALJ’s Rejection of Dr. Frey’s Opinion

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ committed harmful, reversible error by rejecting the opinion

of treating surgeon Frey. (Doc. No. 12 at 12). Plaintiff acknowledges that the ALJ gave several

reasons for rejecting Frey’s opinion. Id. The ALJ noted: (1) Frey’s opinion is contained on a “fillin-the-blank form” with only marginal notes; and (2) Frey’s conclusions are not supported by

medical testing results or other objective medical evidence, and are contradicted by the bulk of the

medical evidence. (A.R. at 21). However, Plaintiff contends that these reasons are inaccurate and

insufficient to overcome the deference afforded to a treating physician. (Doc. No. 12 at 12). 

Defendants counter that the ALJ’s decision was proper for the reasons given, and because Dr.

Frey’s opinion discussed irrelevant material. (Doc. No. 19 at 6). 

Plaintiff is correct that the opinion of an examining or treating physician is entitled to

greater weight than that of a non-examining physician. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th

Cir. 1995). However, the fact that one physician examined the claimant does not mean that his

opinion is dispositive. See id. Rather, the commissioner may reject a treating physician’s opinion

for “clear and convincing” reasons, even if that opinion is uncontradicted. Id. If the opinion is

contradicted by other evidence, the opinion of an examining physician can be rejected for specific

and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 832. 

1. Frey’s opinion is not brief or conclusory.

In Batson v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin, 359 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth

Circuit noted that in a social security disability proceeding, an ALJ may discredit a treating

physician’s opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by

objective medical findings.

Here, the ALJ noted that Dr. Frey’s opinion “appears on a fill-in-the-blank form with only

marginal notes attached to it. (A.R. at 21). The doctor failed to cite any medical testing results or

objective observations to support his conclusions as to the claimant’s residual functional capacity.” 

Id. Plaintiff, however, contends that the ALJ incorrectly assessed the substance of Frey’s opinion. 

- 4 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 4 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Specifically, Plaintiff notes that not only did Frey submit the pre-printed questionnaire, but also a

“narrative statement.” (Doc. No. 12 at 12) (citing A.R. 1210-11, 1214-1222). Furthermore,

Plaintiff notes that Frey provided “copious hospital treatment notes and operative reports detailing

the nature of [Plaintiff’s] recurrent colon abscesses, which have been stubbornly resistant to both

conservative and surgical treatment.” Id. (citing A.R. 957-60, 1132-33, 1151-52, 1126-29, 1154-

55, 1101-03, 1106-1110, 1086-1097, 1060, 1065-68, 1071-73). These notes include reports

compiled by Frey over the course of Plaintiff’s eleven hospital visits between June and October of

2007, and from further treatment. Id. at 12-13. 

Defendants acknowledge that Dr. Frey provided notes for Plaintiff’s visits, but counter that

these notes only cover a period prior to January 2007. (Doc. No. 19 at 6). Defendants note that

Plaintiff’s disability was undisputed prior to 2007, and thus notes on Plaintiff’s condition or

treatment should have no bearing on the ALJ’s decision denying benefits after that period. Id.

Furthermore, Defendants contend that these treatment notes only discuss surgeries related to

Plaintiff’s stomach abscesses, a problem which Defendants contend is no longer at issue because

Plaintiff conceded at the hearing his stomach problem was under control. Id. (citing A.R. 59). 

In his Reply, Plaintiff correctly points out that the treatment notes provided by Dr. Frey do

not only cover the undisputed period of liability ending in January 2007, but extend up to the date

of the hearing. (Doc. No. 21 at 2). Thus, they are relevant to the ALJ’s decision. The record also

reflects that Plaintiff did not concede that his stomach problems were under control. While

Plaintiff did admit that there were no abscesses at the time of the hearing, he also clarified that he

was still experiencing pain and other symptoms, and that his condition was expected to worsen. 

(A.R. at 59-61). Plaintiff stated that he had multiple surgeries throughout 2007 and that these

surgeries had not corrected his abdominal pain. (A.R. at 59). Plaintiff further testified that, during

the latest set of surgeries, a portion of his colon was removed and a later surgery would be needed

to reattach his colon. Id. at 59-60. When asked about his abscesses, Plaintiff testified that while

he didn’t currently have any abscesses, there was concern that when his colon was reattached the

abscesses would recur. Id. at 60-61. Thus, contrary to Defendants’ argument, the fact that Dr.

Frey focused on Plaintiff’s stomach condition does not render his opinion obsolete. 

- 5 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 5 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Furthermore, Plaintiff is correct that Frey provided extensive notes. (A.R. at 957-960,

1132-33, 1151-52, 1126-29, 1154-55, 1101-03, 1106-1110, 1086-97, 1060, 1065-68, 1071-73). 

While the ALJ and Defendants are correct that the fill-in-the-blank form Dr. Frey provided would

likely be too brief and conclusory on its own, even with the narrative statement, Dr. Frey’s

treatment notes provide a factual basis for his opinion. The ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Frey’s

opinion was not supported by any “testing results or objective observations” is not supported by

the record. (A.R. at 21). Dr. Yu, the testifying medical expert, acknowledged at the hearing that

Dr. Frey’s treatment notes were significant, at least with regard to Plaintiff’s stomach condition,

for which Frey was Plaintiff’s treating physician. (A.R. at 82-83). Thus, the contention that Dr.

Frey’s opinion was brief or conclusory is not supported by the record and, on its own, is an

insufficient ground for dismissing Dr. Frey’s opinion. Thomas v. Barnhart. 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th

Cir. 2002). However, if the ALJ’s other reasons for discounting Dr. Frey’s opinion are valid and

constitute specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Frey’s opinion, then the ALJ’s decision

may be affirmed. Lester, 81 F.3d at 831 

2. Frey’s opinion has support in the medical record.

An ALJ is instructed to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the other

evidence on record. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(4); 416.927(d)(4). The ALJ is the final arbiter with

respect to ambiguities in the medical record. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th

Cir. 2008). Furthermore, “[t]he opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may also

serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings

or other evidence in the record.” Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). “Courts

have consistently upheld the Commissoner’s rejection of the opinion of a treating or examining

physician, based in part on the testimony of a nontreating, nonexamining medical advisor.” 

Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 169 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, in addition to Dr. Frey’s opinion, the ALJ considered the opinions of Dr. Yu, a

testifying medical expert, and Dr. Sabourin, the consultative examining physician. (A.R. at 19-25). 

The ALJ found that Dr. Frey’s conclusions were unsupported by any objective medical evidence

on record, were contradicted by the objective evidence on record, and were contradicted by the

- 6 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 6 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

opinions of both Drs. Yu and Sabourin. Id. Thus, the ALJ had a duty to resolve this conflict. 

Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041-42. 

First, Plaintiff contends that Frey’s opinion was uncontradicted because Frey was the only

doctor to assess the functional impact of Plaintiff’s colon condition. (Doc. No. 12 at 13). 

However, at the hearing, Dr. Yu was made fully aware of all of Dr. Frey’s notes and findings

regarding Plaintiff’s colon condition. (A.R. at 80-83). Dr. Yu reviewed Frey’s notes while

testifying, and stated that nothing in those notes changed his ultimate assessment of Plaintiff. 

(A.R. at 83). Thus, Frey’s opinion was not uncontradicted, and could be rejected for specific and

legitimate reasons that are supported in the record. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d at 832.

Yu found that Plaintiff’s condition was likely to improve, and that even considering all of

Frey’s notes and acknowledging that Plaintiff had a post-status ruptured colon, he could perform

tasks in the range specified by examining physician Sabourin (A.R. at 66-69). Thus, Yu’s account

does contradict Frey’s account and supports the ALJ’s decision. 

However, there is no evidence that Dr. Sabourin considered Plaintiff’s colon issues, the

issue for which Dr. Frey treated Plaintiff. (See A.R. at 935). Dr. Sabourin’s report discusses

Plaintiff’s orthopedic injuries exclusively. (A.R. at 939). While Dr. Sabourin mentions a report

from Dr. Frey discussing Plaintiff’s colon issues, he does not list colon or stomach conditions in

his findings, in contrast to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had a post-status ruptured colon. (A.R.

at 22). Thus, Dr. Sabourin’s opinion does not directly contradict Dr. Frey’s opinion on Plaintiff’s

stomach conditions, and is not a legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Frey’s opinion. However, the

opinion of Dr. Yu does refute Dr. Frey’s opinion. 

While it is possible that Dr. Yu’s opinion, in light of the rest of the medical record, would

be enough to discredit Dr. Frey’s opinion, the ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Frey’s opinion was

based on substantial error, including an erroneous view of the substance of Dr. Frey’s opinion. Id.;

20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(4); 416.927(d)(4). This error was compounded by Defendant’s contention

in their Opposition that Dr. Frey’s opinion covered only the undisputed period before 2007 and

that Plaintiff had admitted at the hearing that his stomach problem was under control. While the

ALJ is responsible for resolving ambiguities in the record, the ALJ’s decision must be supported

- 7 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 7 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by substantial evidence that is supported by the record. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035,

1041-42; Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d at 832. The ALJ’s decision, as it currently stands before this

Court, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and cannot be upheld. 

B. The ALJ’s Rejection of Plaintiff’s Subjective Complaints

An ALJ is not “required to believe every allegation of disabling pain” or other impairment. 

See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). However, an ALJ must provide specific,

cogent reasons for rejecting a plaintiff’s testimony. Morgan v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Admin,

169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999); Lester, 81 F.3d at 834. The factors that an ALJ may consider in

deciding whether to reject a claimant’s testimony are specified in the Social Security

Administration rules, and the ALJ may not cite to reasons which do not comport with the

Agency’s rules. Orn, 495 F.3d at 635-37. Those reasons include “reputation for truthfulness,

inconsistencies in the testimony or between testimony and conduct, daily activities, and

‘unexplained or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment of follow a prescribed course of

treatment.’” Id. at 636 (citing Fair, 885 F.3d at 603). 

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he had more severe functional limitations than the

ALJ ultimately found. (A.R. at 21). The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony after finding that

Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not credible. (Doc. No. 12). The ALJ gave the following

reasons for finding Plaintiff not credible: (1) Plaintiff’s testimony was not supported by any

objective medical evidence, including the findings of Dr. Sabourin’s examination; (2) there is no

indication Plaintiff has received any significant treatment for his stomach problems since

September 2007, or other impairments since 2006, including “conservative routine maintenance”;

and (3) there has been “no significant increase or changes in prescribed medication reflective of an

uncontrolled condition” or of “side effects from medication.” (A.R. at 21-22). The ALJ

concluded that these findings contradict Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his pain and side-effects. 

Id. 

Plaintiff contends that these reasons are not supported by the record, and thus the ALJ

improperly discredited Plaintiff’s testimony. (Doc. No. 12 at 14). First, Plaintiff contends that his

testimony regarding ongoing pain and treatment are adequately supported by the record. (Doc.

- 8 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 8 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

No. 12). Plaintiff contends that the record contains numerous references to his recurrent and

painful colon abscesses, as well as the surgery and medication needed to treat these abscesses. 

Indeed, the record contains numerous references to Plaintiff’s repeated hospitalizations for his

stomach conditions. (A.R. at 957-60, 1132-33, 1151-52, 1126-29, 1154-55, 1101-03, 1106-10,

1086-97, 1060, 1065-68, 1071-73). The ALJ’s contention that “there is no indication in the record

that these problems will reoccur in the future” (A.R. at 22) is contradicted by the long history of

recurrence of Plaintiff’s abscesses already detailed, and the treatment notes advising Plaintiff that

his condition may require further monitoring. (A.R. at 1126, 1155, 1210). Plaintiff’s statements at

the hearing that he would require additional surgery and that there may be complications stemming

from that surgery are well supported in the record, and thus do not support the ALJ’s contention

that Plaintiff was not credible. 

Additionally, although the ALJ is correct that Dr. Sabourin reported positive findings at his

January 8, 2007 exam, Dr. Sabourin did not discuss Plaintiff’s stomach conditions. (A.R. at 22). 

Plaintiff does not contest Dr. Sabourin’s findings with regard to his other injuries. Plaintiff merely

notes that Dr. Sabourin failed to consider Plaintiff’s stomach condition in reaching his decision. 

Thus, Dr. Sabourin’s findings do not necessarily conflict with the Plaintiff’s testimony, and do not

indicate that Plaintiff’s testimony was not credible. Accordingly, Dr. Sabourin’s report is an

inadequate basis for finding Plaintiff not credible. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 635; Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-

7p. 

Second, Plaintiff disputes the ALJ’s assertion that “the record fails to show that [Plaintiff]

has received any significant treatment for his other impairments since 2006, including

conservative routine maintenance.” (A.R. at 22). Defendants do not address this point in their

Opposition. Plaintiff again points to the copious hospital records and treatments notes to show that

this rationale is not supported by the record. (Doc. No. 12 at 16). 

The ALJ’s assertion is clearly refuted by the record. It is unclear what the ALJ means by

the term “significant surgery” but in light of the ALJ’s acknowledgment in the same paragraph

that Plaintiff had two abdominal surgeries in July and September of 2007, this rationale is not

supported by the record and thus cannot be used as a basis for finding Plaintiff not credible. See

- 9 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 9 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Orn, 495 F.3d at 635; Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p. Further clarification from the ALJ is necessary to

ensure that Plaintiff’s complete medical record was considered and reviewed. DeLorme, 924

F.2d at 849. 

Finally, Plaintiff disputes the ALJ’s statement that there has been “no significant increase

or changes in prescribed medication reflective of an uncontrolled condition.” (Doc. No. 12 at 16)

(citing A.R. at 22). Plaintiff points to hospital records from August 24, 2011, drafted by Dr. M.

Silverman, in which Dr. Silverman states that Plaintiff has “had escalating doses of narcotics that

he has been taking on his own.” (A.R. at 1109). Dr. Silverman speculates that Plaintiff is addicted

to narcotics as a result of the higher levels of medications he has been taking. Id. 

It is unclear whether Dr. Silverman is describing prescribed increases in Plaintiff’s

medication necessitated by Plaintiff’s condition, or abuses of an existing prescription. The former

would support Plaintiff’s contention and refute the ALJ’s rationale, while the latter would be

consistent with the ALJ’s findings. Thus, the ALJ’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous, and, in

light of the bulk of the medical record, supports his conclusion that Plaintiff is not credible. 

Defendants do not address these final two points in their Opposition. Rather, Defendants

contend that the ALJ properly exercised his discretion in finding Plaintiff not credible because

Plaintiff was “identified as a poor historian.” (Doc. No. 18 at 8) (citing A.R. at 935). This

rationale, however, does not support the ALJ’s finding. While Dr. Sabourin noted in his exam that

Plaintiff had been described as a poor historian, there is no indication who made this

determination, what it was based on, or whether it was adopted by Dr. Sabourin. (A.R. at 935). 

Accordingly, this is not a specific finding on credibility which is supported by evidence in the

record, and cannot be used to find Plaintiff not credible. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-7p. 

In conclusion, while the ALJ’s decision does list at least one valid basis for finding

Plaintiff not credible, it also includes several basis that are not valid. Specifically, the ALJ

misreads the record in concluding that Plaintiff did not undergo any significant treatment since

2006, and in finding that there was no evidence that Plaintiff continued to suffer from his stomach

condition. (A.R. at 22). Furthermore, there is no evidence to support Defendants’ contention that

Plaintiff is a poor historian. In light of these errors, the Court finds that the ALJ’s finding that

- 10 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 10 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff is not credible is based on substantial error, and is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Sandqathe, 108 F.3d at 980. 

IV. Remand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate.

As discussed above, the ALJ’s decision to reject the opinion of Dr. Frey, and the ALJ’s

finding that Plaintiff is not credible are based on substantial error and are not supported by

substantial evidence. Id. The ALJ has a special duty in social security cases to fully and fairly

develop the record in order to make an informed decision on a claimant’s entitlement to disability

benefits. DeLorme, 924 F.2d at 849. In light of these factual errors, the ALJ’s decision cannot be

affirmed. 

When an ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court may

either reverse, and award benefits, or remand for further administrative proceedings. Harman v.

Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). Remand is the preferable course, and a full reversal is

rarely appropriate. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 886

(9th Cir. 2004). An immediate award of benefits is only appropriate when: (1) the ALJ failed to

provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the evidence; (2) there are no outstanding issues

that must be resolved before a determination of disability can be made; and (3) it is clear from the

record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled upon review. Benecke v.

Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, outstanding issues remain that must be addressed before a determination of disability

can be made. The ALJ’s decision to reject the opinion of Dr. Frey was based on an incomplete

analysis of the record, and a mistaken view of Plaintiff’s medical history regarding his stomach

condition. The ALJ must re-evaluate Dr. Frey’s testimony in light of the significant treatment

notes and hospital records regarding Plaintiff’s stomach condition, and in light of Dr. Sabourin’s

failure to consider Plaintiff’s stomach condition. Furthermore, the ALJ must re-evaluate his

finding that Plaintiff was not credible in light of the fact that there is no support in the record for

the proposition that Plaintiff is a poor historian, that Plaintiff has undergone several surgeries since

2007, and that Plaintiff’s medication levels have changed. The Court does not posit on the

- 11 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 11 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ultimate outcome of this analysis.

V. Conclusion

It is RECOMMENDED that both Plaintiff and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be DENIED and the case REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent

with this ruling. 

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objection to this REPORT must be filed

with the Court and served on all parties no later than September 30, 2011. The document should

be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendations. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court

and served on all parties no later than October 7, 2011. The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specific time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 12 - 10cv1263-JLS ( MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-01263-JLS-MDD Document 24 Filed 09/07/11 Page 12 of 12