Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02854/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02854-1/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

3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS

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

JENNIFER MICHELLE CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING IN PART REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; and

(4) REMANDING APPLICATION TO 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION

Plaintiff Jennifer Michelle Clark filed this action seeking judicial review of the 

Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance 

benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and Defendant filed a crossmotion for summary judgment.

Case 3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS Document 32 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS

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

On January 29, 2018, Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful 

and thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Plaintiff does not contest the 

Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) findings regarding her physical limitations and 

impairments; she only challenges the ALJ’s finding regarding the severity of her mental 

impairments. Pl.’s Mot. at p. 3 (“Clark stipulates that the ALJ fairly and accurately 

summarized the medical and non-medical evidence of record, except as specifically 

stated in the Argument section, infra,” and only arguing findings regarding mental 

limitations). 

The crux of Plaintiff’s appeal is that the ALJ gave little weight to the medical 

opinion of treating physician Dr. Deborah Birnbaum, D.O., while giving great weight to a 

non-treating consulting examiner, Ted Shore, Ph.D. Dr. Birnbaum treated Plaintiff on 

numerous visits regularly over time. Dr. Shore examined Plaintiff one time after the 

hearing was conducted. Dr. Birnbaum opined that Plaintiff was unlikely to be able to 

maintain stability during a workday as a result of her mental limitations and impairments. 

The ALJ gave this opinion little weight because “it is inconsistent with the [Plaintiff’s] 

relatively normal activities of daily living and mild limitations on mental status 

examinations.” Decision at AR 23 (citations to the record omitted). This was the full 

extent of the ALJ’s reasoning. 

The ALJ gave greater weight to all of the other medical sources. For example, he 

gave “some weight” to the opinion of a non-treating consulting psychologist Dan 

Whitehead, Ph.D. based on an examination several years before the alleged onset date. 

Id. The ALJ also gave “some weight” to the opinions of B. Smith, M.D. and Dara 

Goosby, Psy.D., who were non-treating, non-examining state agency psychological 

consultants. Id.

Magistrate Judge Schopler’s Report concluded that the ALJ failed to use the 

correct procedure to determine how much weight to give Dr. Birnbaum’s opinion. Under 

the recent case of Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664 (9th Cir. 2017), an ALJ must 

consider the factors for weighing medical opinions found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-

Case 3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS Document 32 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS

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

(6). Trevizo at 679. Because the ALJ did not consider such § 404.1527(c)(2) factors as 

the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, or the nature of the 

treatment relationship in addition to the supportability of the opinion, Trevizo concluded 

that “[t]his failure alone constitutes reversible legal error.” Id.; Report at P. 6 (quoting 

Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676). Of course, the ALJ did not have the benefit of the Trevizo case 

when he wrote his decision. And the ALJ did begin his discussion with the statement that 

he considered opinion evidence in accordance with § 404.1527. Decision at AR 22.

Magistrate Jude Schopler consider the error to be harmless. In short, he found the 

ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Birnbaum’s opinion 

by citing to the relevant portions of the administrative record but “simply [did not] 

memorialize all the relevant facts considered.” Report at p. 7. But this is where faulty 

procedure may lead to substantial error. 

At the hearing, the Vocational Expert was given two hypothetical work scenarios. 

In the second hypothetical, the Vocational Expert concluded that there are no jobs that 

Plaintiff could do if Dr. Birnbaum’s limitation is included. But the ALJ gave that opinion 

of Plaintiff’s regular treating specialized psychiatrist, Dr. Birnbaum, the least weight of 

all. If the ALJ considers the Dr. Birnbaum opinion carefully in light of all of the 

§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) factors, he may well give that opinion sufficient weight to include 

the Dr. Birnbaum work limitations in an accurate vocational hypothetical. That, in turn, 

may lead to a finding of disability. 

The Court adopts the portions of the Report that set forth the factual background, 

legal standard, and determination that the ALJ was required under Trevizo to specifically 

articulate his considerations of the “length, frequency, or nature of [Plaintiff’s] 

relationship with Dr. Birnbaum” prior to determining the weight to give Dr. Birnbaum’s 

opinion. See Report at pp. 1-6. There is little indication that the ALJ considered the 

regulatory factors and some indication that full consideration of the regulatory factors 

would have changed the ALJ’s ultimate decision regarding Plaintiff’s ability to work. 

See Hoffman v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-1976-JM-AGS, 2017 WL 3641881, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 

Case 3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS Document 32 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS

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

Aug. 24, 2017) (“Trevizo does not demand a full-blown written analysis of all the 

regulatory factors; it merely requires some indication that the ALJ considered them.”). 

Therefore, remand for further administrative proceedings, rather than an award of 

benefits is appropriate. Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, (9th Cir. 2017) (“When the 

ALJ denies benefits and the court finds error, the court ordinarily must remand to the 

agency for further proceedings before directing an award of benefits.”) (citation omitted); 

Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) (“because 

the record does not compel a finding of disability, we remand Treichler’s disability 

application to the district court to remand to the agency for further proceedings”).

Accordingly, the case is remanded “with an open record” on the issue of Plaintiff’s 

ability to do sustained work necessary for full-time employment in light of her 

combination of physical and mental impairments. In accordance with the recent Trevizo 

decision, the ALJ shall articulate his or her evaluation of the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors. 

Additionally, because the ALJ relied on consulting psychologist Dr. Shore’s opinion in 

discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony and the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, and 

because his opinion was rendered after the initial hearing, Plaintiff shall be permitted (if 

she so chooses) to cross-examine Dr. Shore regarding his medical opinion.

In sum, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part, and 

Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff’s disability 

benefits application is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further 

proceedings consistent with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02854-BEN-AGS Document 32 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4