Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00507/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00507-1/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)

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

FILED' 

AUG 3 1 2012 

CLERK., u.s. DIS 

8OU1'IERN DlSTRIICAq~

... 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHLEEN A. OVERS, CASE NO. 11cv0507 WQH (RBB) 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

vs. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) issued 

by United States Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No.8) be granted in part and denied in part, and that the matter be 

remanded for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 16, 2007, Plaintiff Kathleen A. Overs applied for Social Security Disability 

Insurance Benefits, alleging disability beginning on January 17,2007. (Administrative Record 

("AR") 14; ECF No. 6-2 at 15). Plaintiffs application was denied initially and on 

reconsideration. ld. 

On April 29, 2009, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). 

(AR 24; ECF No. 6-2 at 25). On May 13,2009, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that 

Plaintiff was not entitled to disability insurance benefits. (AR 11-23; ECF No. 6-2 at 12-24). 

On January 10,2011, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff s request for review. (AR 1-5; ECF 

- 1 - llcv0507 WQH (R88) 

Case 3:11-cv-00507-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 08/31/12 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 

No. 6-2 at 2-6). 

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF 

No.1). On January 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the Court 

to reverse the Commissioner's final decision and to remand the case for an award ofbenefits 

or further proceedings. (ECF No.8). On February 23, 2012, Defendant filed an Opposition 

to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Remand to the Social Security 

Administration. (ECF No.9). 

On July 16, 2012, Magistrate Judge Ruben R. Brooks issued the Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff s Motion for Summary 

Judgment in part and remand for further proceedings, (2) deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary 

Judgment in part and not remand for award ofbenefits, and (3) grant Defendant's Motion for 

Remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. (ECF No. 12). 

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The duties ofthe district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a 

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). A district court may "accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.c. 

§ 636(b)( 1). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005); 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

A court "will disturb the denial of benefits only if the decision contains legal error or 

is not supported by substantial evidence." Tommasettiv. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 

2008) (quotation omitted). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The evidence must be more than a 

mere scintilla but not necessarily a preponderance." Id. (quotations omitted). 

- 2 - llcv0507 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:11-cv-00507-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 08/31/12 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 

DISCUSSION 

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

ALJ, the administrative record, and the submissions ofthe parties. 

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that Plaintiffs 

Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds that the 

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that "[i]n light of Judge Trembley's [sic] failure to 

articulate specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Nester's opinion ... the matter should 

be remanded to allow Judge Trembly to explain his reasons for doing so." (ECF No. 12 at 15) 

(citing Strauss v. Comm'r o/Soc. Sec. Admin, 635 F.3d 1135, 1138). 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is adopted in its 

entirety, except for the sentence on page 12, lines 24-26, which is modified as follows: 

"Plaintiffcontends that because the treating physician's opinion was not adequately rejected, 

it should be accepted as a matter of law and the case should be remanded for an award of 

benefits." (Jd. at 12). 

CONCLUSION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 

(ECF No. 12) is adopted in its entirety, except for the sentence on page 12, lines 24-26, which 

is modified in accordance with this order. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's Motion for Remand (ECF No.9) 

is GRANTED. The Court REMANDS this case to the Social Security Administration for 

. further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 

DATED: _~~~,#L..F--=---V__ 
 WILLIAM Q. AYES 

United States D' trict Judge 

28· 

- 3 - II cv0507 WQH (RBB) 

Case 3:11-cv-00507-WQH-RBB Document 13 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 3