Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01353/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01353-2/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)

---

1

16-CV-1353 JLS (JLB)

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

AARON SPAYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-1353 JLS (JLB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) 

REMANDING CASE TO SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

(ECF Nos. 16, 18, 21)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 

16), and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18). The Court 

referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt, who subsequently issued a 

thorough, twenty-one-page Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court 

Case 3:16-cv-01353-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-CV-1353 JLS (JLB)

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

grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand the matter to the Social Security 

Administration for further proceedings (“R. & R.”). (ECF No. 21.) Having reviewed the 

Parties’ motions, Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation, and the underlying 

Administrative Record, (ECF No. 13), the Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which 

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only 

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing Campbell v. U.S. 

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).

ANALYSIS

In the present case, neither party objected to Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 

Recommendation. And the Court here finds no clear error on the face of the record. The 

Court agrees that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) below “failed to articulate specific 

and legitimate reasons to discount [both] Dr. Kistler’s opinions” and “Plaintiff’s statements 

concerning the limiting effects on the use of his hands as a result of his symptoms.”

(R. & R. 6; see also id. at 15–19 (noting, in sum, that: several of Defendant’s motion-based 

arguments are post-hoc rationales not articulated by the ALJ; the ALJ “fail[ed] to point to 

any medical evidence in support of [his] conclusion” regarding Plaintiff’s alleged mental 

limitations, whereas Plaintiff supplied ample evidence supporting the contrary conclusion;

the ALJ “discounted Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the use of his hands” without any 

Case 3:16-cv-01353-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-CV-1353 JLS (JLB)

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

meaningful analysis whatsoever; and each error may affect the ultimate disability 

determination).)1 Furthermore, the Court agrees that although the ALJ’s errors were not 

harmless, remanding for further consideration is appropriate given that in this case 

“enhancement of the record would be useful.” (Id. at 19–20 (quoting Benecke v. Barnhart, 

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

CONCLUSION

Given the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Judge Burkhardt’s Report and 

Recommendation in its entirety, (ECF No. 21); GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 

PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 16); DENIES Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18); and REMANDS the case to the Social 

Security Administration for further proceedings. Because this concludes the litigation in 

this matter, the Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017

 

1 The Court also agrees that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, to discount Dr. Recalde’s opinion. (See R. & R. 7–15 (explaining that ALJ properly 

gave no weight to Dr. Recalde’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) determination because: Dr. 

Recalde did not exhibit familiarity with Plaintiff either commensurate with a “treating physician” as 

contemplated by the Social Security Regulations or adequate to form a meaningful opinion regarding the 

extent of Plaintiff’s alleged disability; Dr. Recalde’s opinion was contradicted by the record and lacked 

any supporting test results; Dr. Recalde rarely (if ever) actually saw Plaintiff and did not attach all relevant 

medical documentation to his completed RFC questionnaire despite being given the opportunity to do so; 

and that the ALJ properly considered the contrary opinion of a consultative examiner, Dr. Dao, in rejecting 

Dr. Recalde’s opinion).)

Case 3:16-cv-01353-JLS-JLB Document 22 Filed 08/14/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3