Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01475/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01475-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405rs Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

RAPHAEL MAXIMILIAN RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF Nos. 9, 14, 18)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 9, 14). Magistrate Judge Barbara 

Major has issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R,” ECF No. 18), recommending 

that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Defendant’s Cross-Motion for 

Summary Judgment be denied, and that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 

Administrative Law Judge and remanding this matter for further administrative 

proceedings. Defendant filed objections to the R&R, (“R&R Obj.,” ECF No. 19-1), to 

which Plaintiff filed a response, (“Resp. to Obj.,” ECF No. 20).

Having reviewed the Parties’ motions, Judge Major’s R&R, and the underlying 

Administrative Record, the Court ADOPTS Judge Major’s Report and Recommendation 

in its entirety.

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

BACKGROUND

Judge Major’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of the factual and 

procedural histories underlying the instant Motions for Summary Judgment. (See R&R 2–

4.)1 This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion of the report to which 

objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely objection, the Court “need only 

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment 

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.”).

ANALYSIS

I. Summary of Judge Major’s Findings

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff is not disabled as 

defined in the Social Security Act. (R&R 3 (citing Administrative Record (“AR”), ECF 

No. 7, at 19–27).) The ALJ determined that Plaintiff could return to his past work as a fire 

dispatcher and case worker because this work is not precluded by his functional limitations. 

(Id. at 4 (citing AR 26).) Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in not properly considering 

Plaintiff’s Veterans Administration (“VA”) disability rating. The VA had determined 

 

1 Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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 is 100% disabled.

Judge Major first noted her concern about the adequacy of the Administrative 

Record. (R&R 7.) Plaintiff had represented himself during the disability hearing so the 

ALJ needed to be “especially diligent” in developing the record to assure Plaintiff’s 

interests were considered. (Id. at 7–8 (citing Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th 

Cir. 1996); and McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011)).) However, the 

record “does not contain the Rating Decision issued by the VA that contains the date of the 

decision, the bases for the disability determination, and the explanation of the disability 

rating percentages.” (Id. at 8.) Moreover, the record “does not include medical records 

from Terri Brown, a therapist who treated Plaintiff ‘for PTSD, anger management, and

anxiety.’” (Id. at 9 (quoting AR 33).) In sum, Judge Major found the record to be 

ambiguous and incomplete. (Id. at 8–9.)

Further, even if the record were complete, Judge Major found the ALJ failed to 

provide the requisite persuasive, specific, and valid reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s VA 

disability rating. (Id. at 9.) The ALJ did not explain why he discounted the VA 

determination. Judge Major found she could not conclude the error is harmless (Id. at 12.) 

“[H]ad the record been complete, the Court finds that a reasonable ALJ could have reached 

a different disability determination.” (Id.)

In sum, Judge Major recommends reversing the decision of the ALJ and remanding 

for further proceedings.

II. Summary of Defendant’s Objections

The one header in Defendant’s objections is titled: “Any error in the ALJ’s 

evaluation of the Veterans Administration Disability Rating was only harmless.” (R&R 

Obj. 3.) However, within this header, Defendant objects to various findings by Judge 

Major, not only the finding that the error was not harmless. Therefore, the Court will 

review the R&R in its entirety de novo.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

III. Discussion

A. The Determination of the Veterans Administration

The Court first analyzes Plaintiff’s allegation that the ALJ failed to ensure the record 

adequately contained Plaintiff’s VA disability determination and also improperly 

discounted the VA’s determination.

1. Adequacy of the Record

An ALJ in Social Security cases “has a special duty to fully and fairly develop the 

record and to assure that the claimant’s interests are considered.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 

F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 

1983). “[W]here the claimant is not represented, it is incumbent upon the ALJ ‘to

scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant 

facts.’” Cox v. Califano, 587 F.2d 988, 991 (9th Cir. 1978) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Judge Major first found the record to be inadequate. Specifically, the record does 

not contain the VA’s Rating Decision that shows, among other things, the basis for the 

determination that Plaintiff is 100% disabled. (R&R 8.) The ALJ acknowledged that “the 

VA determined that the claimant was 100% disabled due to PTSD (70%); intervertebral 

disc syndrome (60%); sleep apnea syndromes (50%); fibromyalgia (40%); degenerative 

arthritis of the spine (20%); impairment of the clavicle or scapula (20%); synovitis (10%).” 

(AR 25.) The ALJ then cited to two pages in the record, (AR 516–17), but these two pages 

do not refer to nor explain the VA ratings. In fact, there is no explanation in the record at 

all for the ratings. 

Defendant objects that the “record was fully developed for the ALJ’s evaluation of 

Plaintiff’s alleged mental disability.” (R&R Obj. 3.)2 Defendant argues there was “ample 

mental health evidence for the ALJ to evaluate the severity of Plaintiff’s alleged mental 

 

2 Specifically, Defendant states: “Even Plaintiff does not contest that the record was not fully developed 

for the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s alleged mental disability.” (R&R Obj. 3.) Despite the use of a 

confusing double negative, the Court assumes Defendant is arguing that the record is fully developed.

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

impairment and his mental functional capacity.” (Id. at 4.) Defendant argues that because 

there was supporting evidence in the record allowing the ALJ to analyze Plaintiff’s alleged 

mental impairments and functional limitations, the “ALJ properly evaluated the VA’s 

disability rating.” (Id. at 6.) Defendant cites to Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459

(9th Cir. 2001), for the proposition that “[a]n ALJ’s duty to develop the record further is 

triggered only when there is ambiguous evidence or when the record is inadequate to allow 

for proper evaluation of the evidence.” (Id. at 4.) Defendant argues that the record as a 

whole was adequate to support the ALJ’s determination.

Indeed, the ALJ obviously cited to and considered other evidence in the record. But, 

what is lacking is the VA disability determination and the supporting evidence behind it. 

This missing documentation triggered the ALJ’s duty to further develop the record. See 

McLeod, 640 F.3d at 886 (“By failing to obtain and consider [Plaintiff]’s VA disability 

rating, the ALJ erred, denying him the ‘full and fair hearing’ to which he was entitled.”). 

The Court agrees with Judge Major that the record is inadequate and the ALJ committed 

legal error by failing to conduct an appropriate inquiry and obtain the missing VA records.3 

The Court ADOPTS this finding.

2. Discounting the VA Determination

The VA determined that Plaintiff was 100% disabled. In determining that Plaintiff 

is not disabled under the SSA, the ALJ clearly came to a different conclusion. The Ninth 

Circuit normally requires the ALJ to give the VA disability rating “great weight,” but the 

ALJ may give less weight, if he gives “persuasive, specific, valid reasons for doing so that 

are supported by the record.” McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Judge Major found that the ALJ, in rejecting the VA rating or at least giving it little weight, 

failed to provide specific reasons for doing so. (R&R 9.) Defendant objects to this finding.

 

3

Judge Major further determined the record was inadequate in other regards, outside from the missing 

VA disability determination. The record does not include medical records from Terri Brown, who treated 

Plaintiff. (R&R 9.) Defendant does not object to this specific finding. The Court agrees that the record 

lacks any documents pertaining to Ms. Brown’s treatments and ADOPTS this finding.

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

The Court agrees with Judge Major. The Court, like Judge Major and the ALJ,

acknowledges that a decision by the VA is not binding on the Social Security 

Administration. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1504. Defendant’s argument is that that there is 

sufficient evidence overall to support a finding of no disability. (R&R Obj. 4.) Judge 

Major acknowledged that the ALJ addressed some medical records to support his 

conclusion that Plaintiff was not disabled. (R&R 10.) But, this argument does not affect 

the determination that the ALJ was required to provide specific reasons for discounting the 

VA determination. Instead, the ALJ simply referred to the fact that the VA had determined 

Plaintiff to be 100% disabled, and said “[h]owever, VA ratings of disability do not compel 

the Agency to find ‘disability’ under the Social Security Act and regulations.” (AR 25.) 

Indeed, this is true, but this legal conclusion is not by any means a “specific” reason for 

affording little or no weight to the VA determination. The ALJ failed to provide any

specific explanation for discounting the VA disability determination and thus insufficiently 

addressed the VA disability rating. The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection and 

ADOPTS this finding in the R&R.

3. Harmless Error

Judge Major determined that the ALJ’s error is not harmless. (R&R 12.) An error 

is harmless if it is “clear from the record that ‘the ALJ’s error was inconsequential to the 

ultimate nondisability determination.’” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)). The 

Court agrees with Judge Major and cannot say it is clear that the ALJ’s failure was 

inconsequential to his determination. Had the ALJ properly considered the VA 

determination, (or, if he did indeed do so but failed to provide specific reasons for 

discounting it), a different determination could have been made. 

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections and ADOPTS this portion of the 

R&R.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

17-CV-1475 JLS (BLM)

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

Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

and REVERSES the decision of the ALJ. Further, the Court agrees that remanding this 

matter for further proceedings is the proper course of action. (R&R 14.) Further 

administrative proceedings to develop the record would be useful and are appropriate. This 

matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. The Clerk SHALL close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01475-JLS-BLM Document 22 Filed 07/09/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7