Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01888/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01888-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405wc Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

t • V

1 F It.ED

16 DEC ~6 PM 2*- 25 2

3 CiERK.U.S. OISTWCTMffl^ StfSfH£R?filit8l6*t« UAUrt*N»A

4

*4^ BMStv

«V: 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 NITA F. GATLIN, Case No.: 3:15-cv-01888-BEN-PCL

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

13 v. RECOMMENDATION

14 CAROLYN C. COLVIN,

15 Defendant. [Docket Nos. 11,12,15]

16

PlaintiffNita Gatlin filed this action seeking judicial review ofthe Social Security

Commissioner’s denial ofher application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the

Social Security Act. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff and Defendant filed motions for summary

judgment which were fully briefed. (Docket Nos. 11-14.)

Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis has issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and

Recommendation recommending this Court grant in part Plaintiffs Motion for Summary

Judgment and deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 15.)

Specifically, the Report and Recommendation found the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) erred in failing to provide the entire record to the medical expert, which may

have affected the medical expert’s analysis ofPlaintiffs impairments, the ALJ’s analysis

ofPlaintiffs credibility, and the ALJ’s analysis ofthe treating physicians’ opinions.

Judge Lewis recommends remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

^ • 1 S-r.v-01 RRR-RF.N-PCT

Case 3:15-cv-01888-BEN-PCL Document 18 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 4
further development ofthe record with regard to the medical expert’s opinion, as well as

reevaluation ofthe treating physician’s opinions. Defendant filed Objections to the

Report and Recommendation and Plaintiffhas filed a Reply to those Objections. (Docket

Nos. 16,17.) For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED.

1

2

3

4

5

6 BACKGROUND

The Report and Recommendation sufficiently details the administrative record in

this case. The Court will not repeat it here, but notes relevant facts as warranted in the

Court’s analysis ofDefendant’s Objections.

7

8

9

10 DISCUSSION

11 A districtjudge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he districtjudge must determine de novo any part ofthe [report and

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the districtjudge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo ifobjection is made, but not otherwise.”

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor

the statute requires a districtjudge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

Defendant objects that any error in failing to provide the medical expert with

complete records was harmless because the outstanding records would not have affected

the medical expert’s opinion. Defendant also argues that the record as a whole supports

both the medical expert’s opinion and the ALJ’s resulting RFC determination. The Court

disagrees, overrules Defendant’s Objections, and adopts the Report and

Recommendation.

At Plaintiffs September 26, 2014 hearing, a medical expert, Dr. Robert Sklaroff,

provided an opinion that the ALJ relied on in determining Plaintiffs residual functional

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

V1 S-r.v-01 m-RRN-PCT.

Case 3:15-cv-01888-BEN-PCL Document 18 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 4
t)

capacity (“RFC”). During the hearing, Plaintifftestified that, on July 4, 2014, she fell 13

feet from a balcony, and sustained injuries, including six broken ribs, a broken sternum

and three spinal fractures. (Administrative Record (“AR”) 35.) The ALJ was informed

that the medical records from this incident were not a part ofthe record. (AR 35-36.)

However, rather than continue the hearing to a date after Plaintiffs outstanding records

were received, the ALJ decided to proceed on the records already submitted. (AR 36.)

The outstanding medical records consist ofPlaintiffs hospital records from the

July 4, 2014 balcony-fall incident, a medical source statement from Dr. Bagheri

regarding those injuries, and Plaintiffs physical therapy records from 2012. (Docket No.

16. at 3.) During the hearing, the ALJ represented that there would be an additional

hearing once the outstanding records were provided, and that the ALJ would call Dr.

Sklarofffor the “next hearing.” (AR 46.) However, the ALJ never scheduled an

additional hearing. Further, the ALJ never provided Dr. Sklaroffwith the missing

exhibits, or an opportunity to revise his opinion based on his review ofthe record as a

whole.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Instead, after Plaintiffprovided the supplemental records, the ALJ proceeded to

make his determination. In denying Plaintiffs claim, the ALJ relied heavily on Dr.

Sklaroffs opinion testimony, which did not include review or analysis ofthe

supplemental records, and gave little weight to Plaintiffs treating physicians, whose

findings were inconsistent with Dr. Sklaroffs opinion. As a matter oflaw, an ALJ

cannot dismiss the conclusions oftreating physicians by relying heavily on the testimony

of a medical expert who relied on an incomplete records. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242

F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001).

The Court cannot say the record was full and fairly developed because it is

undisputed that Dr. Sklaroff did not have the entire record before him when he testified,

and was under the impression that he would receive additional records and would provide

additional testimony upon receipt. Even ifthe additional records would not have changed

Dr. Sklaroffs opinion (something upon which it can only be speculated), the ALJ still

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3-1 S-rv-O! RRR-RF.N-Pr.T

Case 3:15-cv-01888-BEN-PCL Document 18 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 4
v1

erred in not providing a “full and fairly developed” record to the medical expert he later

relied upon in making his RFC determination. See Brown v. Heckler, 713 F. 2d 441,443

(9th Cir. 1983) (an administrative lawjudge has a “special duty to fully and fairly

develop the record and to assure the claimant’s interests are considered”).

Moreover, contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the Court is not in a position to

determine whether the medical expert’s opinion would change based on supplemental

medical records. One could well imagine that the medical consequences of a 13-foot fall

would significantly affect a person’s RFC. The Court agrees with Judge Lewis’s

conclusion that providing Dr. Sklaroffwith the supplemental records could have affected

the medical expert’s analysis ofPlaintiffs impairments, the ALJ’s analysis ofPlaintiffs

credibility, and the ALJ’s analysis ofthe treating physicians’ opinions. Remand is

required.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 CONCLUSION

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and this matter is REMANDED

to the Social Security Administration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

15

16

17

18 DATED: Decembers , 2016

T. BENITE 19 United States District Judge

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

vis-r.v-m m-RRN-pri.

Case 3:15-cv-01888-BEN-PCL Document 18 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 4