Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00031/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

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

 The Administrative Record is available electronically on the docket at Docs. # 8

through 8-7. Citations are to the consecutive pagination in the upper right hand corner of each

page.

- 1 - 09cv31 WQH (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAZARETH RONDINELLI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09cv31 WQH (RBB)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by

Plaintiff Nazareth Rondinelli (Doc. #12) and Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security (Doc. # 15), and the Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. # 18).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was insured through Social Security through December 31, 2000 and must

therefore establish disability before this date to be eligible for benefits. See AR at 23.1

Plaintiff initially sought disability benefits on December 9, 2004. at 22. Plaintiff’s first

application was denied on February 11, 2005. Id. Plaintiff did not appeal that decision. Id.

Case 3:09-cv-00031-WQH-RBB Document 19 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 09cv31 WQH (RBB)

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff applied for benefits again. Id. This second application was

additionally dismissed by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) due to res judicata. Id. at

77. In the order dismissing the case, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff had not submitted any new

evidence and had not established good cause for reopening his application. Id. The Appeals

Council reversed the ALJ’s determination on December 5, 2007, finding 

[A]dditional evidence provides further information regarding the severity of

claimant’s impairments during the relevant period. The additional evidence

includes a December 12, 2000 discogram that was positive for discogenic pain

at L2-3. The evidence indicates that claimant continued to be treated for back

pain and that, when conservative measures were not successful in controlling his

pain, he underwent a third back surgery shortly after his date last insured.

Therefore, a remand is appropriate so that the Administrative Law Judge can

issue a decision on the merits.

Id. at 113. On remand, the ALJ held a hearing on April 18, 2008 and issued a written decision

denying benefits on May 13, 2008. Id. at 22-29. On June 25, 2008, the Appeals Council

upheld the ALJ’s decision denying benefits. Id. at 12-14. 

On January 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Judicial Review and Remedy on

Administrative Decision pursuant to the Social Security Act. (Doc. # 1). On October 7, 2008,

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 12). On December 28, 2010,

Defendant filed his Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and a Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docs. # 15–16). On May 20, 2010, the Magistrate

Judge issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant in part and

deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Cross Motion for

Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 18). The R&R recommends that the Court remand the case to

the ALJ to “explain how Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity would allow him to perform

work classified as ‘light’ [and reconcile this opinion with the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff had

a semi-sedentary residual functional capacity] and explain his reasons for rejecting Dr. Van

Dam’s opinions contained in the agreed medical evaluation addendum and correspondence

dated January 2, 15, and 26, 2001.” Id. at 19, 43–44. The R&R allows any party to file written

objections on or before June 3, 2010. Id. at 44. Neither party filed objections to the R&R.

Case 3:09-cv-00031-WQH-RBB Document 19 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 09cv31 WQH (RBB)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with the Report and Recommendation of

a Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The district

court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which

neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v.

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

The ALJ’s decision denying benefits “will be disturbed only if that decision is not

supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error.” Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d

599, 601 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla

but less than a preponderance.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the R&R in its entirety. The Court concludes that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the case should be remanded to the ALJ to allow

the ALJ to explain how Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity would allow him to perform

light work and to explain his reasoning in rejecting Dr. Van Dam’s opinions. The Court

concludes the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ “may consider including

Van Dam’s [] medical evaluation, dated November 27, 2000, in the analysis.” See Doc. # 18

at 38. The Court concludes the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the ALJ gave “clear

and specific reasons” for making his negative credibility finding. See Doc. # 18 at 40. The

ALJ specifically relied on the following factors: (1) Plaintiff “does not need any assistive

devices to ambulate;” (2) “[t]he record does not show that the claimant requires any special

accommodations (e.g., special breaks . . .) to relieve his pain or other symptoms;” (3) Plaintiff

“does not exhibit any significant disuse muscle atrophy, loss of strength, or difficulty moving

that are indicative of severe or disabling pain;” (4) “the objective evidence shows that the

medications have been relatively effective in controlling the claimant’s symptoms” and “the

Case 3:09-cv-00031-WQH-RBB Document 19 Filed 08/30/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 09cv31 WQH (RBB)

claimant has not alleged any side effects from the use of medications;” and (5) “[t]here is no

evidence of sleep deprivation due to pain.” AR at 25-26.

While these findings are specific, on remand, the ALJ should reconsider whether these

findings are consistent with evidence in the record that pain medication does not relieve

Plaintiff’s pain (AR 145-146, 510, 514-18); Plaintiff uses “different back braces” (AR 146,

512); Plaintiff must “pace himself to 10 min each task,” cannot drive more than 20 minutes,

sit for more than 10-15 minutes, stand for more than 10-15 minutes (AR 146-47, AR 170); has

difficulty finishing housework or other chores because he cannot work more than 15-30

minutes (AR 171); sleeps 5-6 hours a night, but slept 2-3 hours per night before he had a sleep

number bed which was prescribed by a doctor (AR 171, 585, 603, 702-03); takes Ambien to

sleep (AR 171, 302); has lost 89% of his lift capacity (AR 287) and has decreased strength in

his hips (AR 519); has had such serious issues with painkillers that doctors recommended

“inpatient detoxification” (AR 601-02, 621-22, 650, 652, 657); and has difficulty thinking

while taking narcotics (AR 656).

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

(Doc. # 18) is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #12)

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. # 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court

remands in part to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings

consistent with the Report and Recommendation and with this order.

DATED: August 30, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00031-WQH-RBB Document 19 Filed 08/30/10 Page 4 of 4