Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00665-1/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

MARTHA P. VARELA-GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv0665-WQH-BGS

ORDER

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United

States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal (ECF No. 13).

I. Introduction

On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits,

alleging disability beginning on October 6, 2011. (Administrative Record (“AR”) at

271-280). Plaintiff’s application was initially denied on November 16, 2012, and

denied upon reconsideration on March 15, 2013. Id. at 201-06, 208-14. On April 18,

2013, Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing. Id. at 215-16. Following a hearing on April

30, 2014, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Jay E. Levine issued a decision denying

Plaintiff’s application on August 5, 2014. Id. at 19-68. On January 19, 2016, Social

Security Appeals Officer Richard M. Ciaramello, Jr. issued a Notice of Appeals Council

Action denying Plaintiff’s request for a review of the ALJ’s decision. Id. at 1-4. The

Notice stated that the ALJ’s decision “is the final decision of the Commissioner of

- 1 - 16cv0665-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WQH-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
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

Social Security” in this case. Id.

On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial review of

the Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for benefits, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. 405(g). (ECF No. 1). On May 31, 2016, Defendant filed an answer. (ECF

No. 7). On July 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

10). On August 9, 2016, Defendant filed the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(ECF No. 11). On August 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 12).

On January 23, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 13). The Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ committed

“legal error” by failing to provide “detail” in his decision as to “what medical evidence

he took into account in deciding to reject Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions

regarding Plaintiff’s abilities, because the ALJ did not explain which medical evidence

he relied on in determining that their opinions were unsupported.” Id. at 23. The

Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court make “a finding that the ALJ

failed to provide sufficiently specific reasons for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Roldan

and Borrero” and recommended that this case be remanded to the Social Security

Administration and the ALJ for further consideration. Id. at 23-24, 27.

The Magistrate Judge found that there was “no inconsistency between Dr.

Glassmire’s conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s limitations and the ultimate determination

of Plaintiff’s RFC [Residual Functional Capacity] by the ALJ.” Id. at 26. The

Magistrate Judge found that even if the ALJ “fail[ed] to mention the moderate

limitations ascribed by Dr. Glassmire[,]” any omission was harmless error. Id. The

Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court make “a finding that there was

no legal error in this instance, and even if there was legal error, such error was

harmless.” Id. at 26-27.

The Report and Recommendation states that “no later than February 6, 2017, any

party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy to all

parties.” Id. at 27. The Report and Recommendation states that “any reply to the

- 2 - 16cv0665-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WQH-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
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

objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than February

20, 2017.” Id. The docket reflects that no objections have been filed.

II. Review of the Report and Recommendation

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 judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations 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). The

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation

to which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636] requires

a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties

themselves accept as correct.”).

The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The

Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the written opinion of the ALJ,

the administrative record, and the submissions of the parties. The Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to

detail why the ALJ discounted the opinions of the treating physicians Drs. Roldan and

Borrero. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this case should be remanded

to the Social Security Administration for further consideration by the ALJ. The Court

further concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that there was no

inconsistency between Dr. Glassmire’s conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s limitations and

the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s RFC. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded

that even if the ALJ committed error by failing to mention the moderate limitations

ascribed by Dr. Glassmire, any such omission was harmless error.

III. Conclusion

- 3 - 16cv0665-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WQH-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
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

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

11) is adopted in its entirety; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff

(ECF No. 10) is granted in part and denied in part; (3) the Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by Defendant (ECF No. 11) is granted in part and denied in part; and (4)

this case is remanded to the Social Security Administration for the Administrative Law

Judge to further clarify his decision to afford little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s

treating physicians Drs. Roldan and Borrero and for further proceedings consistent with

this Order and the Report and Recommendation.

DATED: March 29, 2017

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 16cv0665-WQH-BGS

Case 3:16-cv-00665-WQH-BGS Document 14 Filed 03/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4