Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02496/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02496-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0423 Social Security Act (Disability Insurance Benefit Payments)

---

1

17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

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

SCOTT KEVIN WHEAT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 17]

OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S 

OBJECTIONS TO THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION;

[Doc. No. 18]

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

[Doc. No. 11]

DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND

[Doc. No. 14]

REMANDING FOR FURTHER 

PROCEEDINGS

On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff Scott Kevin Wheat filed this social security 

appeal challenging the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Doc. 

Case 3:17-cv-02496-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

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

No. 1. The Court referred all matters arising in this appeal to the Honorable Robert N. 

Block, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation pursuant to 

section 636(b)(1)(B) of title 28 of the United States Code and Civil Local Rule 72.1. See

Doc. No. 16. The parties have filed motions for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 11, 14. 

On August 14, 2018, Judge Block issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report 

recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, 

and remand the case for further proceedings. Doc. No. 17. Defendant has filed 

objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 18.

LEGAL STANDARD

The duties of the district court in connection with a Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where the parties file objections, “[a] judge of the [district] court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] 

to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

149–50 (1985). A district judge 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); 

Wilkins v. Ramirez, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1080, 1088 (S.D. Cal. 2006).

DISCUSSION

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) improperly rejected Doctor Arvin Mirow’s opinion that Plaintiff was 

extremely limited in social functioning as supported by substantial evidence and 

inconsistent with Plaintiff’s actual functioning. Doc. No. 18 at 1-4. Where, as here, the 

treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may not reject the 

opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial 

evidence in the record for so doing. Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 

1983). “An ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, 

and unsupported by the record as a whole, . . . or by objective medical findings.” Batson 

v. Comm’r of the SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Additionally, an ALJ may 

Case 3:17-cv-02496-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

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

reject the opinion of a treating physician where there is an inconsistency between the 

opinion and a plaintiff’s daily activities. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Mirow’s 

opinion on the basis of inconsistency with mental status examinations. First, the ALJ 

cites only to Dr. Mirow’s mental status examinations, many of which do not undermine 

his opinion. See AR at 24 (citing AR at 510, 515-16, 524-25, 614, 625-26, 630-31, 745-

46). For example, Plaintiff reported frequent panic attacks and only leaving the house

one to two times per week. AR at 508, 513, 522, 533, 612, 624, 629, 633, 638, 649, 655, 

664, 669, 739, 744, 770. Additionally, Dr. Mirow found Plaintiff’s psychomotor 

behaviors hypoactive, affect constricted, mood anxious, irritable and depressed, attitude 

discouraged, and his self-perception abasing. AR at 510, 515-16, 524, 613-14, 740-41, 

745-46, 750-51, 755-56, 760-61, 772, 777-78, 783, 787-88, 793, 798, 803, 812, 823-24. 

At times, Dr. Mirow also found Plaintiff’s appearance disheveled, his memory impaired 

and mood labile, that Plaintiff expresses suicidal ideation in thoughts, or found that his 

thought content reveals compulsions or obsessions. AR at 740-41, 745-46, 750-51, 755-

56, 760-61, 771-72, 778, 783, 788, 793, 824.

Second, even if the Court were to consider other parts of the ALJ’s decision in an 

effort to find support for his conclusions, many of the mental status examinations 

referenced elsewhere in the decision do not appear to substantially undermine Dr. 

Mirow’s opinion. Plaintiff consistently reported symptoms of severe depression, anxiety, 

agoraphobia, and obsessive compulsive disorder. AR at 487-91, 503-04, 519, 527, 530, 

542, 544, 643, 646, 764, 767, 807, 815. Further, the limitations assessed by Dr. Mirow 

relate to Plaintiff’s ability to function socially, and other than noting Plaintiff was 

“cooperative” during the examinations, none of the mental status examinations cited in 

other parts of the decision specifically address Plaintiff’s capacity for socialization. See 

AR at 488-91, 503-04, 531, 644, 647, 734, 765, 768. Accordingly, substantial evidence 

does not support the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Mirow’s opinion as “inconsistent with mental 

Case 3:17-cv-02496-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

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

status examinations in evidence.” See AR at 24; see McAbee v. Colvin, No. C16-482 

RSM, 2017 WL 541477, at *5-6 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2017) (ALJ improperly rejected 

treating physician’s opinion where ALJ did not cite to contradicting mental status 

examinations and other examinations were not related to the plaintiff’s limitations).

Similarly, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Mirow’s 

opinion as inconsistent with Plaintiff’s actual functioning. Here, the ALJ specifically 

noted that Plaintiff reported that he helps prepare his 5-year-old son for school and helps 

with his homework, “can independently maintain self-care,” “can prepare frozen 

dinners,” and that “he does some cleaning and laundry as much as possible.” AR at 25. 

Additionally, Plaintiff reported being able to drive and go out alone sometimes, shop for 

food, and handle finances. Id. Plaintiff further reported infrequently watching television, 

swimming, and camping, and indicated that his symptoms do not affect certain physical 

abilities, memory, completing tasks, understanding, following instructions, or getting 

along with others and authority figures. Id. 

As an initial matter, the ALJ did not cite Plaintiff’s second and more recent 

Function Report. See AR at 24-25. In this report, Plaintiff states that his “mental health 

condition affects [his] ability to talk or be around people.” AR at 244. While he 

indicates that he “help[s] prepare [his] child for school,” he also reported that his ability 

to go outside was “very limited” and that he could not do so alone. AR at 245, 247. 

Plaintiff also reported that his wife does the shopping, he doesn’t see friends often, and 

that he gets along with authority figures “fine.” AR at 247-50. 

In any event, the ALJ does not explain his finding of inconsistency; rather he says 

that Plaintiff’s reported activities are inconsistent with Dr. Mirow’s opinion that 

Plaintiff’s “signs and symptoms include a pervasive loss of interest in almost all activities 

and that [Plaintiff] is emotionally withdrawn and isolates.” AR at 24; see Embrey v. 

Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 42-221 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The ALJ must do more than offer his 

conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than 

the doctors’, are correct.”). None of the daily activities cited by the ALJ exceed Dr. 

Case 3:17-cv-02496-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17cv2496-MMA (RNB)

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

Mirow’s opined limitations in social functioning. Brandl v. Astrue, No. CV 11-7719-SP, 

2012 WL 3887097, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012) (“The mere ability to perform 

activities of daily living . . . is not a specific and legitimate reason.”); Fair v. Bowen, 885 

F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The Social Security Act does not require that claimants 

be utterly incapacitated to be eligible for benefits.”); see AR at 234-42, 247-50 (reporting 

that Plaintiff’s anxiety and agoraphobia affect his ability to talk or be around people and 

go outside alone). As such, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that it “cannot 

discern an inconsistency” between Dr. Mirow’s opinion and Plaintiff’s function reports. 

Doc. No. 17 at 12. 

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, the Court finds 

Judge Block’s conclusions are thorough, well-reasoned, and supported by applicable law. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 17] is ADOPTED in its 

entirety;

2. Defendant’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 18] 

are OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 11] is GRANTED;

4. Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14] is 

DENIED; and

5. The Court REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02496-MMA-RNB Document 19 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5