Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01084/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01084-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 06cv1084

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY HADRICK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1084-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND

REMANDING FOR FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

[Dkt Nos. 17, 18]

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

PlaintiffBeverlyHadrick ("Hadrick"), proceeding with the assistance of counsel, seeks judicial

review and remedy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under

Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423. In particular, she alleges the

Commissioner's decision to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") July 28, 2005 decision

denying her application was an abuse of discretion, based on legal error, with the findings of fact and

conclusions of law not supported by substantial evidence. Hadrick seeks entry of judgment in her

favor reversing the decision or, alternatively, a judgment in her favor remanding the case to the agency

for a new administrative hearing and a redetermination of the issues. 

Hadrick filed a Motion For Summary Judgment ("Motion"), arguing the ALJ erred in

purportedly ignoring the opinions of her examining physician, Dr. Richard Greenfield, M.D., without

making appropriate findings, in purportedly failing to accord "controlling weight" to the opinions of

her treating physicians, Dr. Denise Rubino, M.D. and Dr. Thomas Harris, M.D., without making

Case 3:06-cv-01084-LAB-JMA Document 24 Filed 09/05/07 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 - 06cv1084

appropriate findings, and in purportedly failing to resolve conflicts in the testimony of the vocational

expert. Dkt No. 17. The Commissioner filed Opposition to Hadrick's motion and a Cross-Motion For

Summary Judgment ("Cross-Motion"), contending the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial

evidence and free of legal error. Dkt No. 18. Hadrick filed a Reply to the Cross-Motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2) and FED.R.CIV.P. ("Rule") 72(b), this matter was referred

to Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). He entered his

thorough and thoughtful R&R August 2, 2007, recommending the Motion be granted in part and

denied in part, the Cross-Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and the case remanded for

further proceedings. Dkt No. 23. The deadline for filing Objections to the R&R passed on August 20,

2007, with none filed.

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further

evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions" on a dispositive matter

prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Rule

72(b);see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). A party objecting to the recommended disposition of the matter may

"serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," and "a party may

respond to another party's objections." Rule 72(b). "[T]he court shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection

is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980) (when objections

are made, the court must make a de novo determination of the factual findings to which there are

objections). The court also reviews de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law. Gates v.

Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1995). That statutory provision does not require the district court

to conduct some lesser review when no objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50

(1985); but seeRobbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007) (the magistrate's conclusions

of law are reviewed de novo, regardless of whether any party has filed objections thereto). "If neither

party contests the magistrate's proposed findings of fact, the court may assume their correctness and

decide the motion on the applicable law." Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979).

Neither party has contested the proposed findings of fact in this R&R. In the absence of

objections, the court assumes their correctness. Orand, 602 F.2d at 208; Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676.

Case 3:06-cv-01084-LAB-JMA Document 24 Filed 09/05/07 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 - 06cv1084

The court has reviewed de novo the legal standards the R&R applied to the recited facts in reaching

its conclusions of law. The court finds the R&R cogently demonstrates the ALJ erred by not

adequately discussing Dr. Greenfield's opinions, erred in his consideration of Dr. Harris' opinions, and

erred by not resolving the discrepancies at regulatory Step Five concerning other work Hadrick can

perform. Remand is warranted when additional administrative proceedings can remedy defects in the

original decision. Lewin v. Schweiker, 654 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1981). The recommended remand

instructions are to have the ALJ "properly consider and discuss Dr. Greenfield's and Dr. Harris'

opinions, reformulate Plaintiff's RFC in light of those opinions, if appropriate, and re-evaluate

Plaintiff's case under Step 5 of the sequential evaluation process. R&R 28:28-29:4.

For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R analysis and ACCEPTS the

recommended results. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Hadrick's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART, the Commissioner's Cross-Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with the instructions

proposed in the R&R, terminating this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01084-LAB-JMA Document 24 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 3