Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00841/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00841-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

– 1 – 16cv0841

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

MINH TRIEU DOAN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS

ORDER:

(1)OVERRULING 

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS

(ECF No. 39);

(2)ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

(ECF No. 38);

(3)GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF No. 16);

(4)DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF No. 22); AND

(5)REMANDING ACTION FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 19
– 2 – 16cv0841

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

Plaintiff Minh Trieu Doan commenced this action seeking review of the Social 

Security Commissioner’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income 

under Title XVI of the Social Security Act.1 The Court referred this matter to the 

magistrate judge for a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c)(1). After the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued 

an R&R recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 16) and 

deny the Commissioner’s motion (ECF No. 22). (ECF No. 38.) The Commissioner

then filed objections to the R&R, to which Plaintiff has replied. (ECF Nos. 39, 40.)

For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES the Commissioner’s 

objections, ADOPTS the R&R, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, DENIES the 

Commissioner’s motion, and REMANDS this action for further proceedings 

consistent with this order.

I. BACKGROUND

A. First Administrative Hearing

On July 19, 2010, Plaintiff submitted an application for Supplemental Security 

Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (Administrative Record (“AR”)

172–76.) The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s application because 

it determined “he was not a United States citizen, national, or eligible alien at the 

time of his application.” (AR 89.) After Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought

reconsideration of this decision, he requested a hearing before an Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”). (AR 90.) 

 1 On January 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security. She is therefore substituted as Defendant in this suit for former Acting Commissioner 

Carolyn W. Colvin. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(d) (stating that where an action 

for judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner is instituted “the person holding the 

Office of the Commissioner shall, in his [or her] official capacity, be the proper defendant”).

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 19
– 3 – 16cv0841

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 February 4, 2011, the Social Security Administration sent Plaintiff’s 

counsel a letter acknowledging that it had received Plaintiff’s request for a hearing. 

(ECF No. 40-1.)2 This letter encloses a list of exhibits and asks Plaintiff to “submit 

the following information: a. All medical records not already in file.” (Id.) The 

attached exhibit list reveals one medical record is “already in” Plaintiff’s file. (Id.) It 

identifies Exhibit No. 15 as a ten-page “Psychological Evaluation from Lessner, 

Milton PhD dated 8/21/10.” (Id.) 

On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff appeared at a hearing before ALJ James S. 

Carletti. (AR 89.) After the hearing, the ALJ issued a fully-favorable decision. (AR 

84–88.) In his order, the ALJ reports that: “The record now contains a Permanent 

Resident card . . . with [Plaintiff]’s picture. The card states that [Plaintiff] has been a 

resident since November 22, 1993, and that the card expires on March 30, 2012.” 

(AR 90.) Thus, after concluding there is no reason for him to doubt the authenticity

of Plaintiff’s Permanent Resident card, the ALJ finds that Plaintiff “has the legal 

status to be eligible to receive Title 16 disability benefits if he is found to be disabled 

under the Social Security Act.” (Id.) 

Having resolved this threshold issue, the ALJ then notesthat Plaintiff’s counsel 

requested at the hearing “that [the ALJ] make a determination on [Plaintiff]’s 

disability.” (AR 90.) The ALJ further notes, however, that “the record only contains 

a psychological report dated August 21, 2010, from Dr. Lessner (Exhibit 15).” (Id.) 

//

 2 Plaintiff first provided a copy of this letter in responding to the Commissioner’s objections 

to the R&R. (See ECF No. 40-1.) In light of the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court will 

consider the Administration’s letter for several reasons. First, the Court has already accepted 

supplemental information from the Commissioner regarding the record for Plaintiff’s disability 

claim. (See ECF Nos. 35, 36.) Second, the letter is consistent with other evidence in the record, and 

its contents help rebut the charge made in the Commissioner’s objections that Plaintiff has failed 

to establish good cause for belatedly resubmitting a medical report. Third, even though the 

Administration’s letter bolsters the Court’s conclusion below, the Court would reach the same 

outcome even if it did not consider the letter.

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 19
– 4 – 16cv0841

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 worth pausing here. This is the second time Dr. Lessner’s August 21, 2010, 

psychological report has manifested. But, as will be seen, “[t]his is the case of the 

incredible vanishing report.” (R&R 1:25.) The Court will refer to Dr. Lessner’s

psychological report that is referenced in both the Administration’s exhibit list and 

the ALJ’s 2011 order as the “Lessner Report.” 

Returning to the ALJ’s decision, upon recognizing that the medical record only 

contains the Lessner Report, the ALJ finds “that medical development has not been 

done in this case.” (AR 90.) He therefore remands “the case to the District Office and 

California State Agency for the development of [Plaintiff]’s medical disability 

issues.” (Id.)

B. Further Administrative Proceedings

After this remand, the Social Security Administration further considered 

Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits. On March 20, 2012, several months 

after the ALJ’s decision discussed above, a disability claims examiner found Plaintiff 

is not disabled. (AR 66–72.) In the “Disability Determination Explanation,” the 

examiner lists the medical evidence that was considered. (AR 68–69.) Missing from 

this list, however, is the vanishing Lessner Report.3 (See AR 68.) 

Plaintiff requested reconsideration of the examiner’s decision. (AR 92.) On 

December 21, 2012, a disability claims examiner again found Plaintiff is not disabled.

(AR 73.) As before, the new examiner listed the medical evidence that was 

considered. (AR 75–77.) This time, there is an entry for Dr. Lessner. (AR 76.) Yet, it 

appears the entry does not correspond with the Lessner Report. (See AR 76–79.) The 

entry instead appears to correspond with a request for medical records the 

Administration sent to Dr. Lessner on October 31, 2012. (See AR 279–81.) Dr. 

 3 Several of the items on this evidence list are identified as being from an “Unknown Name.” 

(AR 68–69.) It appears, however, that the Lessner Report was not masquerading as one of these 

“Unknown Name” items based on the other descriptors included for each item on the list. (See id.)

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 19
– 5 – 16cv0841

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

Lessner signed the request, but he apparently did not return any medical records with 

the Administration’s form. (See id.) However, at the same time, Dr. Lessner

perplexingly did not complete the form’s following relevant entry: 

 THIS REQUEST IS BEING RETURNED. WE DO NOT 

HAVE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED. PLEASE PROVIDE 

DATE LAST SEEN: .

(AR 281.)

C. Second Administrative Hearing

Plaintiff requested another hearing before an ALJ to challenge the adverse 

disability determination. (AR 106.) Plaintiff appeared for a hearing on August 27, 

2013, before ALJ Carletti. (AR 14, 31.) ALJ Carletti is, of course, the same ALJ who 

presided over Plaintiff’s first hearing and previously noted that “the record only 

contains a psychological report dated August 21, 2010, from Dr. Lessner (Exhibit 

15).” (AR 90.) In commencing the second hearing, the ALJ admits evidence as 

follows:

(AR 32.) The Lessner Report is missing from this list of admitted exhibits. (See id.; 

see also AR 25–28 (identifying exhibits).) 

AJL: We have proposed exhibits in the

medical section, 1-4F and in the E section 

1-12E. We have also noted the 

documents in the A, B, and D sections. 

Any objections to those documents?

Pl.’s Att’y: No.

ALJ: Okay. We’ll get those admitted.

(Exhibits in sections A, B, D, 1F through 

F, and 1E through 12E, previously 

identified, were received into evidence 

and made a part of the record thereof.)

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 19
– 6 – 16cv0841

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

Later in the hearing, Dr. Robert McDevitt, an independent medical expert, 

testifies by phone. (AR 31, 56.) Although Dr. McDevitt’s telephonic testimony is 

often disjointed and unclear, it is damaging to Plaintiff. (See AR 56–59.) He questions 

whether there is medical evidence to support Plaintiff’s claimed head injury, and he

indicates Plaintiff’s claimed level of functioning is inconsistent with his social 

activities. (See id.) 

After the ALJ concludes his examination of Dr. McDevitt, he initially provides 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Manbeck, an opportunity to question the doctor:

ALJ: Okay, Ms. Manbeck, do you have any 

questions for the doctor?

Pl.’s Att’y: Doctor, the date that he applied for 

disability is July 2010. So you can opine 

from that period forward?

Dr. McDevitt: I don’t think any without -- there’s 

available, 1998 through that period 

Henderson about in -- Henderson was

only relying on -- just told him and had 

records -- really that doesn’t document 

very clearly what he has done to help

this man. If he is actually impaired 

every two months is not very helpful 

and they have that he goes out with

friends and claims [INAUDIBLE] so it 

contradicts the fact that he’s fairly 

adept.

Pl.’s Att’y: Well, I am referring you to the 

evaluation of the Lessner Office 

[phonetic]-

ALJ: He doesn’t have that, Ms. Manbeck. He 

just gave it to me this morning.

Pl.’s Att’y: I am talking about for Lessner, your 

honor. He has it. It is Exhibit 15.

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 19
– 7 – 16cv0841

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

(AR 60.)

Plaintiff’s counsel and the ALJ then proceed to go back-and-forth regarding 

the Lessner Report and whether it is in the record. (AR 61–65.) The ALJ admonishes 

Plaintiff’s counsel for not raising this issue when the ALJ admitted exhibits at the 

start of the hearing. (AR 61.) Plaintiff’s counsel responds that she has a copy of the 

Lessner Report on a CD, that she reviewed it in the lobby, but that she is having 

trouble accessing the CD on the equipment in the hearing room. (Id.) She continues:

Pl.’s Att’y: It’s right here, your honor, but all I am 

saying is that I cannot open it on this 

machine and I need help. I need help, 

somebody for to open, so then I can 

refer to the doctor.

ALJ: Well, I am sorry. It’s too late to ask for 

help now. There’s -- it’s B1 through B4. 

The only report is a report from Dr. 

Cedrick and Dr. Henderson.

(AR 61.) After more exchanges between the ALJ and Plaintiff’s counsel, the ALJ 

decides to terminate Plaintiff’s counsel’s opportunity to examine Dr. McDevitt and

to dismiss the witness:

ALJ: Okay. Doctor, we are just going to end 

the hearing right now because there is 

just too much confusion as to what Ms. 

Manbeck’s agreed these are the exhibits 

and now she has a different CD that I 

have no idea what she has. I know you 

don’t have it, so it doesn’t matter what 

she has, because you have no

opportunity to review it. So I’ll thank 

you for your testimony today and I’ll let 

you know what we’re going to do in the 

future.

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 19
– 8 – 16cv0841

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

(AR 62.) The ALJ then adjourns the hearing:

ALJ: Ms. Manbeck, this hearing is -- we are 

going to end this hearing and we are 

either going to continue to do something 

else.

. . . .

So we’ll continue the hearing and we’ll 

figure out what to do next . . . .

(AR 63–64.)

D. The ALJ’s Decision

The ALJ never reconvened the hearing. Instead, he issued a written decision 

denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits a few weeks later. (AR 14–24.) But it turns out 

other doctors—unlike Dr. McDevitt—had reviewed the Lessner Report. In the ALJ’s

summary of the medical evidence, he notes that “Dr. Miller reported that he reviewed 

a report by Dr. Milton Lessner, PhD, dated August 21, 2010.” (AR 18.) The ALJ then 

recounts Dr. Miller’s summary of the Lessner Report, including Dr. Lessner’s 

comments that Plaintiff “appeared to be unemployable due to his dysfunctional 

capacity” and that testing of Plaintiff “showed signs of delusions and hallucinations, 

emotional turmoil, anxiety and depression.” (Id.) In the analysis portion of his

decision, the ALJ also notes that “Dr. Miller recounted the findings from an alleged 

report by Dr. Lessner, but a request for records to Dr. Lessner was returned, indicating 

no records were available.” (AR 21.)

Further, the ALJ mentions that another doctor, Dr. Henderson, “also relied on 

an alleged report by Dr. Lessner.” (AR 22.) Then, although the Lessner Report has

apparently vanished and is not available to the ALJ, the ALJ comments that the report

“contain[s] only subjective complaints and conclusory statements, without objective 

testing or supporting psychiatric treatment records.” (Id.) He proceeds to “give[ ] no 

weight to Dr. Lessner’s alleged medical report, because it apparently was a one-time 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 19
– 9 – 16cv0841

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

examination, contains only subjective complaints and conclusory statements, and is 

not in evidence despite attempts by the state agency and counsel to obtain the alleged 

report.” (Id.)

Finally, the ALJ discusses the testimony offered by Dr. McDevitt—the 

independent expert who Plaintiff’s counsel had started to question before the ALJ 

abruptly terminated the hearing. (AR 23.) After summarizing Dr. McDevitt’s adverse 

testimony, the ALJ points out that:

“Dr. McDevitt had an opportunity to review the claimant’s entire medical 

record and listen to his sworn testimony. Additionally he was given the 

opportunity to question the claimant and was subject to cross examination 

by the claimant’s counsel.”

(Id. (emphasis added).) The ALJ then relies on Dr. McDevitt’s adverse testimony. 

(Id.) Hence, he finds Plaintiff does not have a severe impairment or combination of 

impairments. (Id.) The ALJ therefore concludes Plaintiff is not disabled under the 

Social Security Act. (AR 24.)

Plaintiff appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Social Security Administration’s 

Appeals Council, arguing that he was denied due process. (AR 7–8.) The Appeals 

Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review (AR 1–3), and this action seeking 

judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision followed. 

E. The R&R

After hearing oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary 

judgment, Judge Schopler issued an R&R recommending that this Court grant 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, and 

remand this action for further proceedings. (R&R 6:14–20.) As will be explored 

below, the R&R concludes that the ALJ denied Plaintiff due process by cutting off 

his counsel’s brief examination of Dr. McDevitt. 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 19
– 10 – 16cv0841

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

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Review of the R&R

The court reviews de novo those portions of the R&R to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. But “[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 Schmidt v. 

Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding that where no 

objections were filed, the district court had no obligation to review the magistrate 

judge’s report).

B. Review of a Denial of Social Security Benefits

The Social Security Act permits any applicant for social security disability 

benefits to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision in federal 

district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). However, “[a]s with other agency decisions, 

federal court review of social security determinations is limited.” Treichler v. 

Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, the district 

court “will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision ‘contains legal error or 

is not supported by substantial evidence.’” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007)).

“Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a 

preponderance. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 862 F.3d 987, 996 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (quoting Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 846 F.2d 573, 

576 (9th Cir. 1988)). The ALJ—not the court—is responsible for making credibility 

determinations, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and otherwise resolving 

evidentiary ambiguities. See Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 19
– 11 – 16cv0841

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

1989). Therefore, “[i]f the evidence can reasonably support either affirming or 

reversing a decision, [the court] may not substitute [its] judgment for that of the 

Commissioner.” Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007).

In making its determination, the court “must consider the entire record as a 

whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from 

the Commissioner’s conclusion, and may not affirm simply by isolating a specific 

quantum of supporting evidence.” Trevizo, 862 F.3d at 997 (quoting Garrison v. 

Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th Cir. 2014)). The court’s scope of review is limited, 

as it “review[s] only the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination 

and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he [or she] did not rely.” Id. 

(quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1010).

III. ANALYSIS

The Commissioner objects to the R&R. She predominantly disagrees with 

Judge Schopler’s interpretation of the record and his conclusion that the ALJ denied 

Plaintiff due process by cutting off Plaintiff’s counsel’s examination of the

independent medical expert, Dr. McDevitt. (Objs. 2:3–8:15.) Having conducted a de 

novo review of the R&R, the Court will resolve each of the Commissioner’s 

objections. 

A. The Story of the Missing Report

In his R&R, Judge Schopler finds that the Lessner Report went missing in 

between Plaintiff’s first administrative hearing in 2011 and his second administrative 

hearing in 2013. (R&R 1:25–2:8.) He also observes that it appears the Social Security 

Administration “converted [Plaintiff]’s case from paper to an electronic file” in 

between these hearings, which may explain the report’s disappearance. (Id. 2:11–12.)

The Commissioner quibbles with this interpretation of the record, claiming it 

is “not fully accurate.” (Objs. 3:2–5:3.) In doing so, the Commissioner seeks to paint 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 19
– 12 – 16cv0841

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

a picture of two underlying administrative proceedings—not one. (Id. 3:23–4:2.) She 

relies on a declaration from an administrative records employee who states Plaintiff’s 

“non-disability matter resulting in a November 2011 decision was a separate file from 

Plaintiff’s disability claim underlying this action.” (Chung Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 35-1; 

see also id. ¶ 5 (referring to Plaintiff’s purported “non-disability case”). Whereas the 

“non-disability matter” was “a paper file with paper exhibits,” the employee states

the “record for this civil action is based on an electronic record.” (Id. ¶¶ 5–6.) The 

Commissioner then relies on this stratification of the administrative proceedings to 

assail Judge Schopler’s interpretation of the record. (Objs. 4:3–5:3.) 

The Court rejects this characterization. There was only one matter before the 

Social Security Administration: Plaintiff’s July 19, 2010, application for 

Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. (AR 172–

76.) As detailed above, the Administration initially denied Plaintiff’s application 

because it found he was ineligible to receive benefits based on his residency status. 

(AR 89.) After the ALJ reversed this decision, he “remanded” the “case” to the 

Administration for factual development. (AR 90.) He did not direct Plaintiff to file a 

new application for disability benefits or to open a new “matter” with the 

Administration. Nor did the ALJ tell Plaintiff he had to resubmit everything already 

in the record, including the Lessner Report, to the Administration. After all, both of 

the ALJ’s decisions refer to this matter as “In the Case of [Plaintiff]’s claim for 

Supplemental Security Income,” and Plaintiff’s social security number is used as the

only “claim number” throughout the Administration’s files. (AR 14, 89.)

Moreover, although the Commissioner repeatedly chastises Plaintiff 

throughout her motion for summary judgment and objections for not resubmitting

“his copy” of the Lessner Report, (see Def.’s Mot. 6:9–11), she largely ignores the 

evidence demonstrating Plaintiff had provided the Administration with a copy of the 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 19
– 13 – 16cv0841

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

report to begin with.4 The ALJ states in his first decision that the “record . . . contains 

a psychological report dated August 21, 2010, from Dr. Lessner (Exhibit 15).” (AR 

90.) Because the Commissioner has not demonstrated this statement was incorrect, 

the Court holds her to it. Further, the Court notes that prior to the first hearing, the 

Administration provided Plaintiff’s counsel with an exhibit list that identified the 

Lessner Report as being “Exhibit 15” in his file. (ECF No. 40-1.)

Notwithstanding these references to the Lessner Report, the Commissioner 

argues that “the only logical explanation for the lack of Dr. Lessner’s report in the 

electronic record before the ALJ is that Plaintiff never submitted it during the medical 

development of his disability case, which was primarily Plaintiff’s burden.” The 

Commissioner overreaches. Other logical explanations include that the 

Administration did not include everything from its “paper file” in its “electronic file,” 

or that the Administration simply lost the Lessner Report inadvertently.

5 As Judge 

Schopler notes, “We may never learn how the Lessner report pulled this disappearing 

 4 The Commissioner tries to misdirect the Court throughout her objections, including by:

(1) suggesting Plaintiff’s counsel “handpicked” doctors who provided incorrect reports, (Objs. 

2:11–13); (2) focusing on only whether Plaintiff submitted the report after the ALJ’s first decision,

as opposed to also addressing whether Plaintiff provided the report to the agency beforehand, (see 

id. 2:15–17); (3) speculating that the Lessner Report is a forgery, (id. 6:12–15); and (4) again 

impugning Plaintiff’s doctors because Plaintiff “paid for [their] reports” and Plaintiff’s counsel 

“has elicited reports from [them] in multiple other social security cases,” (id. 8:6–8). The last charge 

is particularly surprising given that the Commissioner employs a cadre of state-appointed 

consultative examiners in countless disability determinations.

The Court sets these arguments aside because they do not resolve the issue at hand. Upon 

remand, if the Commissioner desires to still pursue some of these claims, including her theory that 

the Lessner Report is a forgery, she is free to do so. For example, she may subpoena Dr. Lessner to 

testify regarding the report’s contents and its authenticity. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(d); see also 20 

C.F.R. § 416.1450(d) (“When it is reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, an 

administrative law judge or a member of the Appeals Council may, on his or her own initiative or 

at the request of a party, issue subpoenas for the appearance and testimony of witnesses and for the 

production of . . . documents that are material to an issue at the hearing.”).

5 The Court observes that some of the items included in the Administration’s “paper file”

did manage to also make it into the “electronic file,” including Plaintiff’s application for disability

benefits, his appointment of his counsel as his representative, his request for reconsideration of the

initial denial of his eligibility for benefits, and the ALJ’s first decision. (Compare ECF No. 9-1 at 

2, with ECF No. 40-1 at 4.)

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 19
– 14 – 16cv0841

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

act.” (R&R 2:9–10.) But the Commissioner’s continued disavowal of the report’s

existence is unsustainable in light of the information before this Court. 

Thus, because the Court agrees with Judge Schopler’s interpretation of the 

record, the Court overrules the Commissioner’s objection to the R&R.

B. Denial of Due Process

The lynchpin of the R&R is Judge Schopler’s recommendation that the Court 

grant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because he was denied due process. 

(R&R 3:16–5:13.) The Commissioner objects to this conclusion, arguing that the ALJ 

did not abuse his discretion in cutting off Plaintiff’s counsel’s cross-examination of 

a key witness after a single question. (Objs. 7:4–8:15.)

“A claimant in a disability hearing is not entitled to unlimited crossexamination, but is entitled to such cross-examination as may be required for a full 

and true disclosure of the facts.” Copeland v. Bowen, 861 F.2d 536, 539 (9th Cir. 

1988) (citing Solis v. Schweiker, 719 F.2d 301, 302 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Hannah 

v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 442 (1960) (“[W]hen governmental agencies adjudicate or 

make binding determinations which directly affect the legal rights of individuals, it 

is imperative that those agencies use the procedures which have traditionally been 

associated with the judicial process.”). The ALJ has discretion to determine whether 

cross-examination is warranted, including the extent of the examination. See id.;

Solis, 719 F.2d at 302. Consequently, the court reviews the ALJ’s decision to deny 

or limit cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. See Copeland, 861 F.2d at 539; 

Solis, 719 F.2d at 302.

To demonstrate, as noted in the R&R, the Ninth Circuit held in Solis that it was 

an abuse of discretion to deny a claimant the opportunity to cross-examine a medical

expert—even with written interrogatories as a substitute—“where the physician is a 

crucial witness whose findings substantially contradict the other medical 

testimony[.]” 719 F.2d at 301–02; see also Bradley v. Barnhart, No. C 01-01172 SI, 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 19
– 15 – 16cv0841

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

2002 WL 523584, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2002) (concluding the ALJ erred in 

denying the claimant the right to cross-examine an expert whose opinion the ALJ 

relied on in making his determination).

As summarized above, after Dr. McDevitt provided testimony that was 

damaging to Plaintiff and inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record, the 

ALJ ceded the witness to Plaintiff’s counsel for questioning. (AR 56–60.) Plaintiff’s 

counsel asked Dr. McDevitt whether he can opine from the date of Plaintiff’s 

disability application. (AR 60.) After receiving a disjointed and muddled response 

from Dr. McDevitt, Plaintiff’s counsel tried to ask him about the Lessner Report. (Id.) 

The ALJ immediately interjected, cutting off her line of questioning. (Id.) He then 

ultimately terminated the hearing, and Plaintiff never had the opportunity to 

meaningfully examine Dr. McDevitt. 6 (Id.)

The R&R highlights that Dr. McDevitt was a “crucial witness whose adverse 

testimony contradicted other evidence.” (R&R 4:7–8.) And, because Plaintiff never 

had a meaningful opportunity to question Dr. McDevitt, including regarding “the allimportant Lessner Report,” the R&R concludes limiting Plaintiff “to such a meager 

inquiry was reversible error.” (Id. 4:14–5:13.)

The Commissioner responds with an unconvincing attempt to undermine 

Judge Schopler’s analysis. First, she claims the Lessner Report “was not a ‘crucial’ 

report.” (Objs. 7:9–10.) In her view, the actual report was not “crucial” because “the 

record contained reports of other medical sources that repeated Dr. Lessner’s 

findings,” and the Commissioner argues the ALJ properly evaluated these reports “in 

the context of the overall evidence.” (Id. 7:10–12.) In other words, the Commissioner 

 6 The Court acknowledges that during the back-and-forth between the ALJ and Plaintiff’s 

counsel regarding whether the Lessner Report was in the record, Plaintiff’s counsel also managed 

to ask Dr. McDevitt, “Exhibit 15, do you have exhibit 15, doctor?” The doctor responded, “Nothing 

beyond B3F.” (AR 60.) The existence of this additional question does not affect the Court’s 

observation that Plaintiff lacked a meaningful opportunity to examine the doctor. Dr. McDevitt’s

response to this question simply confirmed what the ALJ already had stated—that Dr. McDevitt 

had not reviewed the Lessner Report. (See AR 60–61.)

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 19
– 16 – 16cv0841

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

believes the ALJ’s “secondhand” review of the Lessner Report via its incorporation 

into other materials was sufficient in these circumstances.

The ALJ’s decision demonstrates otherwise. In his order, the ALJ not only 

repeatedly discounts the Lessner Report by referring to it as an “alleged” report 

containing “alleged” findings, (AR 18, 21–22), but he also states that the report (i) 

“contain[s] only subjective complaints and conclusory statements,” and (ii) lacks 

“objective testing,” (AR 22). These statements are incorrect. The Lessner Report is 

not limited to “subjective complaints and conclusory statements”—it discusses five 

psychological tests Dr. Lessner conducted on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 16-2; see also AR 

283 (providing treating physician Dr. Henderson “referred [Plaintiff] to Dr. Lessner 

for psychological evaluation and asked him to perform psychological tests for 

evaluation in conjunction with [Dr. Henderson’s] psychiatric treatment”). Further, 

this testing is even mentioned in one of the medical reports the ALJ discusses in his 

order. (See AR 288 (summarizing Dr. Lessner’s findings, including that “testing [of 

Plaintiff] showed signs of delusions and hallucinations, emotional turmoil, anxiety

and depression and that he felt worthless”).) Thus, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates 

a “secondhand” review of the Lessner Report was insufficient for the ALJ to properly 

evaluate it, and the Court is unpersuaded by the Commissioner’s position.

The Commissioner next attacks the R&R’s analysis by disputing its conclusion 

regarding the adequacy of the cross-examination of Dr. McDevitt. The Commissioner 

argues that “[w]hile one question may seem like an inadequate number of questions 

for cross-examination and not the most ideal,” Plaintiff’s cross-examination of Dr. 

McDevitt was sufficient in these circumstances. (Objs. 7:15–24.) The Court 

appreciates the Commissioner’s candor in recognizing that a single question on crossexamination may not seem “the most ideal.” However, the Court disagrees with her 

conclusion that a single question was adequate in this case—it was not. Moreover, 

the ALJ abused his discretion in limiting Plaintiff’s cross-examination “to such a 

meager inquiry.” (R&R 5:12–13.) Further inquiry was necessary here because: 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 19
– 17 – 16cv0841

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) Dr. McDevitt provided testimony that was adverse to Plaintiff; (2) Dr. McDevitt’s 

response to Plaintiff’s counsel’s question was incomprehensible and partially

inaudible; (3) the ALJ cut off Plaintiff’s counsel’s questioning while stating, “we’ll 

continue the hearing,” but he never reconvened the hearing; (4) Dr. McDevitt’s 

testimony was contradicted by Dr. Lessner’s findings and other doctors’ reports, (5) 

the ALJ relied on Dr. McDevitt’s testimony in denying Plaintiff’s disability claim; 

and (6) the ALJ supported his reliance on Dr. McDevitt’s testimony by quizzically 

stating that Dr. McDevitt “was subject to cross-examination by the claimant’s 

counsel.” 

Accordingly, the Commissioner’s objection to the R&R is overruled. The 

Court agrees with Judge Schopler’s conclusion that the ALJ committed reversible 

error in denying Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine Dr. McDevitt.

C. Development of the Record

In her remaining objection, the Commissioner disputes the R&R’s 

observations regarding the Administration’s independent duty to develop the record 

for Plaintiff’s disability claim, arguing the agency satisfied its burden here. (Objs. 

5:4–7:3; see also R&R 5:14–6:12.) Having already determined the ALJ committed 

reversible error, the Court need not consider this remaining objection. Nevertheless, 

because the Commissioner believes the issue raised in this objection influences the 

due process inquiry, (see Objs. 7:4–6), the Court will dispense with it.

“Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial.” Sims v. 

Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 110–11 (2000) (Thomas, J.) (joined by three justices); accord 

DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Dixon v. Heckler, 811 

F.2d 506, 510 (10th Cir. 1987)). Thus, “the ALJ has a special duty to fully and fairly 

develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Webb 

v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 

441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Sims, 530 U.S. at 111 (“It is the ALJ’s duty to 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 19
– 18 – 16cv0841

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

investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting 

benefits.”). 

The R&R recognizes that both parties share part of the blame for the present 

predicament. Judge Schopler reasons that Plaintiff could have done more to satisfy 

his burden of furnishing medical evidence of a disability, including by ensuring the 

Lessner Report again made its way into the Administration’s record before the 

Appeals Council adjudicated his appeal. (R&R 5:15–21, n.2.) At the same time, 

Judge Schopler notes that the ALJ should have accepted the report “at the hearing, or 

at least sought it out afterwards.” (Id. 6:7–8.) Further, Judge Schopler finds that the 

Social Security Administration’s attempts to obtain the Lessner Report, including it 

sending a records request form to Dr. Lessner that was returned incomplete, were 

insufficient in these circumstances. (Id. 6:8–12.)

The Court agrees that the Administration’s effort was inadequate for those 

reasons highlighted in the R&R. The points raised in the Commissioner’s remaining 

objection do not persuade the Court otherwise. The Commissioner cites to an 

unpublished Ninth Circuit case, Bell v. Berryhill, No. 15-55853, 2017 WL 2347238

(9th Cir. May 30, 2017), to support the proposition that the Administration satisfies 

its duty to develop the record where it contacts the claimant’s doctors for medical 

evidence, but the doctors reply that they do not have records concerning the claimant. 

(Objs. 6:16–26.) Although such an effort may have been sufficient in that case, the 

same effort was inadequate here. The ALJ’s first opinion states the Administration’s 

record includes the Lessner Report, putting the Administration on notice that there 

was additional evidence relating to Plaintiff’s disability claim that needed to be

evaluated. Multiple other reports before the Administration also discussed the 

Lessner Report, again indicating to the agency that it should re-obtain and evaluate 

the report. Further, the ALJ terminated Plaintiff’s cross-examination of Dr. McDevitt 

because the expert had not reviewed the Lessner Report, telegraphing that the hearing 

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 19
– 19 – 16cv0841

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

would continue once the expert was able to review it. Yet, no further effort was made 

to reacquire the report.

In sum, in light of the inquisitorial nature of disability proceedings, the 

Administration’s independent duty to develop the record, and the circumstances that 

unfolded before and after Plaintiff’s second hearing, the Administration should have 

made a further effort to reacquire the Lessner Report. Consequently, the Court 

overrules the Commissioner’s remaining objection. That being said, the denial of due 

process discussed above will serve as the basis for the Court’s remand of this action. 

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the Commissioner’s 

objections (ECF No. 39). The Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the R&R in its 

entirety (ECF No. 38). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (ECF No. 16), DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 22), and REMANDS this case for further proceedings consistent 

with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00841-BAS-AGS Document 41 Filed 09/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 19 of

 19