Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00232/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00232-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

On February 12, 2007, Michael J. Astrue replaced Jo Anne B. Barnhart as the Commissioner

of Social Security (Def’s Cross-Mot at 1 n.1). The Court hereby substitutes Michael J. Astrue as the

Defendant in this case, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 1 - 06cv0232 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv0232 WQH (BLM)

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION, 

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND (3) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 35) of United States

Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. # 23) and grant Defendant’s1 cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 25).

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2003, Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez filed an application for disability insurance

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Admin. Record at 21; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-33.

On October 28, 2004, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Bernard A. Trembly issued a partially

favorable decision for Plaintiff, granting Plaintiff benefits from June 23, 2002 through July 30, 2003,

Case 3:06-cv-00232-WQH-BLM Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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

 The Report and Recommendation mistakenly noted the date as August 24, 2007. Report &

Recommendation at 4, line 2.

3

 The Report and Recommendation mistakenly noted the date as September 7, 2007. Report

& Recommendation at 4, line 6.

- 2 - 06cv0232 WQH (BLM)

but denying Plaintiff benefits after July 30, 2003. Admin. Record at 21. 

On June 29, 2005, the Appeals Council declined Plaintiff’s request to review the ALJ’s

decision, and notified Plaintiff that he could file a civil action within 60 days from the date of receipt

of the notice. Admin. Record at 9. On November 9, 2005, Plaintiff requested an extension of time

to file a civil action, and on December 22, 2005, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff an additional

30 days in which to file a civil action. Admin. Record at 3.

Plaintiff was required to file a civil action on or before January 23, 2006, but Plaintiff did not

file his Complaint in the District Court until January 31, 2006. (Docs. # 1, 35). 

On April 18, 2006, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. # 6). On June 20, 2006,

the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the

motion to dismiss so that Plaintiff could be afforded an opportunity to establish equitable tolling.

(Doc. # 11). On August 24, 20062

, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

(Doc. # 12). 

On September 7, 20063

, Defendant answered the Complaint. (Doc. # 14). Thereafter, the

parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs. # 25, 28, 29).

On May 24, 2007, and after the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and grant Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #

35). On June 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 37). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

Magistrate Judge are set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 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 ALJ’s decision denying benefits “will be disturbed only if that

Case 3:06-cv-00232-WQH-BLM Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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 - 06cv0232 WQH (BLM)

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). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla but less than a

preponderance.” Id.

DISCUSSION

After a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the

Plaintiff objected, the District Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint was untimely because it was not filed

within the time allowed by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the Appeals Council. Admin. Record at 3, 9-11.

The record establishes that Plaintiff filed his Complaint after the time provided by the Commissioner

of Social Security had lapsed, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that because Plaintiff

had properly and successfully submitted a previous request for an extension, his subsequent delay does

not justify equitable tolling. “A garden variety claim of excusable neglect,” does not justify equitable

tolling. Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990). Plaintiff has not established that

he is entitled to equitable relief, and the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment should be granted on that basis. Plaintiff did not object to the Report

and Recommendation’s equitable tolling discussion.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on two related

grounds. First, Plaintiff objects to a sentence in the “Factual Background” section of the Report and

Recommendation, which reads, “no physician of record has opined that the claimant’s continued

symptoms or impairments result in greater limitations than found by the undersigned after July 30,

2003.” Report and Recommendation at 8. Plaintiff objects to this statement, which was made by the

ALJ in the ALJ’s decision to partially grant benefits, on the grounds that Plaintiff has included reports

from physicians, many dated after the ALJ’s decision, that describe worsening symptoms. Objections

at 4. It appears that Plaintiff’s objection is that the Magistrate Judge did not consider the new

evidence. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, however, it is clear that the Magistrate

Judge did consider the evidence which was submitted by Plaintiff after the ALJ’s decision. Report

and Recommendation at 22-25. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s first objection does not warrant

reversal of the Report and Recommendation. 

Case 3:06-cv-00232-WQH-BLM Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 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 - 06cv0232 WQH (BLM)

In his second objection, Plaintiff claims that the Report and Recommendation improperly

dismisses the evidence that Plaintiff submitted after the ALJ rendered his decision. Specifically,

Plaintiff contends that the Report and Recommendation incorrectly states that, of the subsequently

submitted medical opinions, “only Dr. Luetzow concluded that plaintiff was disabled.” Report and

Recommendation at 22-23. Plaintiff contends that physicians other than Dr. Luetzow provided

statements in support of his disability. After reviewing the record and the Report and

Recommendation, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s contention is incorrect. The Magistrate Judge

noted each of the medical reports submitted by Plaintiff after the decision of the ALJ, but correctly

concluded that the majority of those opinions did not further Plaintiff’s disability claim. See Report

and Recommendation at 22-23, fn. 9, 25. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that

even in light of the opinions of Drs. Luetzow and Kerr, the ALJ’s decision was still supported by

substantial evidence and was not contrary to the weight of authority.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 35) filed on May 24, 2007,

in its entirety; 

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to summary judgement (Doc. # 23) is DENIED; and 

(3) Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 25) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00232-WQH-BLM Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 4