Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00782/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00782-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0205 Appointment of Surgeon General

---

1

15CV782 BEN (PCL)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE VAN HOOSE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15CV782 BEN (PCL)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION

[Docket Nos. 13, 14, 17]

Plaintiff Denise Van Hoose filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 

Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income and 

for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff

and Defendant filed motions for summary judgment that were fully briefed. (Docket Nos. 

13-16.)

Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis has issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and 

Recommendation recommending this Court grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 17.) 

Specifically, the Report and Recommendation found the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) failed to consider a treating physician’s opinion in determining Plaintiff’s 

residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and recommends remanding the case to the Social 

Case 3:15-cv-00782-BEN-PCL Document 21 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 4
2

15CV782 BEN (PCL)

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

Security Administration. Defendant filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation 

and Plaintiff has filed a Reply to those Objections. (Docket Nos. 18, 20.) For the reasons 

that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

BACKGROUND

The Report and Recommendation sufficiently details the administrative record in 

this case. The Court will not repeat it here, but notes relevant facts as warranted in the 

Court’s analysis of Defendant’s Objections. 

DISCUSSION

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 

magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 

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

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 

the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

Defendant objects that any error in the ALJ’s RFC determination was harmless 

because the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s RFC finding. The Court disagrees, 

overrules Defendant’s Objections, and adopts the Report and Recommendation.

At Plaintiff’s June 2013 hearing, a medical examiner, Dr. Allan Levine, provided 

an opinion the ALJ relied on in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. Dr. Levine noted that he 

believed the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Roper, concerning the results of 

Plaintiff’s recent MRI of the thoracic spine were “somewhat critical.” (Administrative 

Record (“AR”) at 56.) Dr. Levine did not have two MRIs or Dr. Roper’s opinion 

concerning them when he provided his opinion. (AR 56.) Throughout his testimony Dr. 

Case 3:15-cv-00782-BEN-PCL Document 21 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 4
3

15CV782 BEN (PCL)

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

Levine consistently notes the need for Dr. Roper’s opinion and specifically limits his 

opinion to the record without that information. (AR 65-68.) The ALJ, in directing 

Plaintiff to provide Dr. Roper’s opinion as soon as possible after her appointment also

noted, “[a]s you heard, the doctor says that could be significant one way or the other 

anyway.” (AR 68.) The ALJ also indicated that opinion, when provided by Plaintiff, 

would be provided to Dr. Levine. (AR 69.) 

Plaintiff followed the ALJ’s direction and submitted the results seven days later;

two days after her appointment. However, Dr. Levine did not provide an amended 

opinion that considered Dr. Roper’s opinion. The record does not reflect that Dr. Levine 

was provided Dr. Roper’s opinion. And, critically, the ALJ did not address Dr. Roper’s 

opinion in his decision. Dr. Roper, a treating physician, found Plaintiff had a herniated 

nucleus pulposis at T12-L1-2 and, in addition to diffuse weakness in all tested motor 

segments, Plaintiff appeared quite disabled, having great difficulty transferring from 

examination table to chair with labored and painful ambulation. (AR 2194.) 

Defendant acknowledges that the ALJ adopted Dr. Levine’s opinion. (Def.’s 

Motion at 8.) Additionally, the ALJ states that he gave significant weight to Dr. Levine’s 

opinion in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. (AR 28.) However, the only opinion from Dr. 

Levine that the ALJ could have relied on or adopted in determining Plaintiff’s RFC was 

the one that did not consider Dr. Roper’s opinion. This is particularly problematic given 

that Dr. Levine himself repeatedly indicated his opinion was not complete without 

consideration of Dr. Roper’s results. Additionally, the ALJ did not address Dr. Roper’s 

findings. 

Defendant argues Dr. Levine’s only interest in Dr. Roper’s opinion was whether 

surgery was recommended and since Dr. Roper did not recommend surgery, his findings 

would not have changed Dr. Levine or the ALJ’s determination of Plaintiff’s RFC. 

However, Defendant is incorrectly imputing the ALJ’s interest in whether more surgery 

was planned to Dr. Levine. The ALJ asked Plaintiff about whether surgery was planned 

Case 3:15-cv-00782-BEN-PCL Document 21 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 4
4

15CV782 BEN (PCL)

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

just before Dr. Levine began questioning Plaintiff. But, Dr. Levine’s comments refer 

generally to needing Dr. Roper opinion. (AR 56.) 

The Court could not say on this record that the ALJ was relying on a complete 

opinion from Dr. Levine because Dr. Levine himself expressed the need to consider Dr. 

Roper’s findings. Even if Dr. Levine’s opinion could be considered complete without 

having considered Dr. Roper’s findings, the ALJ still erred by not addressing Dr. Roper’s 

findings. “Even if the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the 

ALJ may not reject this opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons 

supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 632 (9th 

Cir. 2007). “[A]n ALJ cannot avoid these requirements simply by not mentioning the 

treating physician’s opinion and making findings contrary to it.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 

504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007). The ALJ relied on an incomplete opinion in 

making the RFC determination and failed to address a treating physician’s opinion. 

Remand is required.

CONCLUSION

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and this matter is REMANDED 

to the Social Security Administration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-00782-BEN-PCL Document 21 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 4