Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01894/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01894-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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

- 1 - 05CV1894 WQH (POR) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AYSHA AHMED,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV1894 WQH (POR) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the review of the Report and Recommendation filed on October

4, 2006, by the Honorable Louisa S. Porter, United States Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND

In June of 1999, Plaintiff Aysha Ahmed filed an application for Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, claiming disability due to back pain, headaches and

mental impairments. The Commissioner denied her claim initially and on reconsideration, and after

a hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) James S. Carletti, the denial was affirmed.

Plaintiff’s request for review by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council was denied,

and she did not pursue judicial review.

In March of 2003, Plaintiff filed a second application for SSI, claiming disability due to severe

mental disorder, chronic headaches and back pain. The Commissioner denied this claim as well, both

Case 3:05-cv-01894-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 - 05CV1894 WQH (POR) 

initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff filed a timely request for a hearing before

an ALJ, and submitted additional evidence, including a new evaluation form for mental disorders and

progress notes from her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Sultana Hamrang. In April of 2004, ALJ Bernard

A. Trembly conducted a hearing, and on June 15, 2004, issued a decision denying her SSI claim.

Plaintiff again requested review by the Appeals Council and was again denied. On October 4, 2005,

Plaintiff filed this action for review of ALJ Trembly’s opinion, which had become the final decision

of the Commissioner. 

On March 1, 2006, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter for a

Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c)(1)(C). 

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment arguing that the ALJ erroneously

failed to consider the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hamrang, and misconstrued the

conclusions of the social security examining psychiatrist, Dr. Shapiro. On June 22, 2006, the

Commissioner filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the ALJ properly considered

all of the evidence.

On October 4, 2006, Magistrate Judge Porter issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment, and remand the case for further consideration by the ALJ. The

Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ’s interpretation of Dr. Shapiro’s evidence was appropriate.

However, the Magistrate Judge concluded that ALJ Trembly committed legal error in not indicating

on the record consideration of Dr. Hamrang’s most recent report and evaluation, and that this error

may have an impact on the outcome of the SSI claim.

The Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to file written objections to the Report and

Recommendation on or before November 6, 2006. On October 10, 2006, Defendant filed Objections,

arguing that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

DISCUSSION

The District Court must evaluate de novo any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which objections are made, and may accept, reject, or modify the findings or

recommendations therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 3:05-cv-01894-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 05CV1894 WQH (POR) 

After de novo review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, particularly those facts and

conclusions related to ALJ Trembly’s consideration of Dr. Hamrang’s most recent medical findings,

the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed on October 4, 2006, in its entirety. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ erred by not discussing Dr. Hamrang’s assessment

of Plaintiff’s mental condition and resulting limitations. While it is true, as Defendant’s objection

pointed out, that the ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence, the ALJ must explain “why

significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th

Cir. 1984). A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to special weight, and an ALJ cannot disregard

it without “specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir.

1998)(citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ALJ Trembly failed to give any

reasons for rejecting Dr. Hamrang’s opinion, and, in fact, failed to mention Dr. Hamrang at all.

ALJ Trembly’s opinion shows that he relied heavily on the prior ALJ’s determination of

Plaintiff’s functional capacity. A prior determination of functional capacity is entitled to limited res

judicata effect. Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 1998). However, prior determinations

will be reopened for good cause, including the presentation of new and material evidence. 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.989(a)(1) (2006). Dr. Hamrang noted that Plaintiff suffers from auditory hallucinations and

paranoia. (A.R. 219-20). There is no evidence in the record that these conditions were considered

by ALJ Carletti in the first hearing. If properly considered these conditions could impact the

determination of functional capacity and disability. Therefore, remand is appropriate.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed

on October 4, 2006, in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted; (3)

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied; and (4) the matter is remanded for further

administrative proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 2, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01894-WQH-POR Document 22 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 3