Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02718/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02718-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

RAMON SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv2718-WQH-JLB

ORDER

vs.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 20) issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the

Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) and grant

Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social

Security Act alleging an onset date of June 6, 2011. 

On February 19, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application

for benefits and finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security Act. The ALJ

found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 6, 2011. 

The ALJ found that Plaintiff has the following severe impairment: depression. The ALJ

found that Plaintiff did not have any impairment or combination of impairments that

would meet or medically equal any listed impairments. The ALJ concluded that 

the claimant is precluded from work on unprotected heights and dangerous

- 1 - 16cv2718-WQH-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-02718-WQH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/21/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

moving machinery; is precluded from sustained, intense interaction with

the public, coworkers and supervisors but brief conversations or

intermittent conversations are not precluded; and is precluded from

detailed or complex problem solving. 

(ECF No. 13-2 at 21). The ALJ found that Plaintiff was able to perform his past

relevant work as a delivery driver because this work did not require the performance of

work-related activities precluded by claimant’s residual functional capacity. 

After the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, the ALJ’s

decision became the final decision of Defendant. Plaintiff timely filed a Complaint in

this Court seeking judicial review of Defendant’s decision. 

On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

16). Plaintiff contends that the ALJ impermissibly rejected the opinion of the treating

physician Dr. Ross. 

On June 27, 2017, Defendant filed the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(ECF No. 17). Defendant contends that the ALJ properly discounted the opinion of Dr.

Ross setting forth valid reasons based on substantial evidence in the record.

On January 11, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Dr. Ross’s

opinion is inconsistent with the Dr. Ross’ objective mental status exam finding. The

Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ set forth specific and legitimate reasons for

discounting the opinion of Dr. Ross regarding Plaintiff’s capacity to perform work. The

Magistrate Judge concluded that the specific and legitimate reasons set forth by the ALJ

were supported by substantial medical evidence in the record. 

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge and the

ALJ failed to properly credit the opinion of the treating physician Dr. Ross.

RULING OF THE COURT

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those

- 2 - 16cv2718-WQH-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-02718-WQH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/21/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. After

considering the ALJ’s decision, the Administrative Record, and all pleading in this case,

the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly evaluated the facts and correctly

applied the controlling law in this case. This Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision

is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

20) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 16) is DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

No. 17) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment for Defendant and

against Plaintiff.

DATED: February 21, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 3 - 16cv2718-WQH-JLB

Case 3:16-cv-02718-WQH-JLB Document 22 Filed 02/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3