Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01141/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01141-0/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 - 05cv1141

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSALBA H. IBARRA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05CV1141 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES Judge, 

The matter before the court is the review of the Report and Recommendation Re CrossMotions for Summary Judgment (#13) filed on August 30, 2006 by United States Magistrate

Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

BACKGROUND

On March 29, 1994, Plaintiff Rosalba H. Ibarra filed her first application for Social

Security Income benefits alleging disability caused by hypertension, having only one kidney,

gall bladder problems, and back pain. On April 3, 1996, Plaintiff’s first application was denied

by decision of the ALJ. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff

did not seek judicial review and the decision of the ALJ became final.

On September 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed her second application Social Security Income

benefits alleging disability caused by back pain, hypertension and depression. On March 9,

2004, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision finding Plaintiff was not under

Case 3:05-cv-01141-WQH-CAB Document 15 Filed 10/10/06 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 - 05cv1141

a disability as defined in the Social Security Act. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had

impairments of chronic back pain with degenerative changes and status post left-sided

nephrectomy which are severe but do not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ

concluded that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform light level functioning

on a routine and sustained basis and that she is not precluded by her residual functional

capacity from performing her past relevant work. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s

request for review. 

On June 1, 2005, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social

Security Act seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Defendant denying her claim

for disability benefits. 

On June 3, 2005, this Court referred the matter to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and

Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On June 30, 2006, Plaintiff moved for an order reversing the decision of the ALJ and

remanding to the Commissioner. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ committed error by applying

res judicata to the finding of non-disability in the first application; by rejecting the opinion of

her treating physician; and by finding her capable of returning to her past relevant work

without the using a vocational expert.

On July 28, 2006, Defendant moved the court for an order affirming the decision of the

Commissioner to deny benefits. 

On August 30, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (#8) and grant

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (#11). The Report and Recommendation

concluded that the ALJ properly applied res judicata to the merits of Plaintiff’s second

application. The Report and Recommendation concluded that the opinions of Plaintiff’s

treating physicians were not uncontradicted and that the “ALJ provided specific and legitimate

reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Jahn and parts of the opinion of Dr. Garfin.” Report

and Recommendation, page 12. The Report and Recommendation further concluded that the

ALJ was not required to use a vocational expert because the Plaintiff failed to show that she

Case 3:05-cv-01141-WQH-CAB Document 15 Filed 10/10/06 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 - 05cv1141

was unable to return to her previous job. The Report and Recommendation ordered the parties

to file written objections no later than September 8, 2006. No objections were filed. 

RULING OF THE COURT

When no objections are filed, the district court may assume the correctness of the

findings of fact by the Magistrate Judge and decide the motion on the applicable law.

Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974). The failure to file

objections relieves the district court of the burden to give de novo review to findings of fact;

the conclusions of law must be reviewed de novo. Brilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th

Cir. 1989) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)).

After thorough consideration of the findings of fact and de novo review of all

conclusions of law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed on August 30,

2006 in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ’s decision that

Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act was free of legal error and supported

by substantial evidence. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

filed on August 30, 2006 in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (#8) is

denied; and (3) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (#11) is granted. The Clerk of the

Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

DATED: October 10, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01141-WQH-CAB Document 15 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 3