Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02078/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02078-0/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

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP JACOB KORNGOLD,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner 

of Social Security,

1

Defendant. 

Case No.: 18cv2078-W-MDD

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION 

AND CROSS MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[ECF NOS 16, 19]

Plaintiff Phillip Korngold (“Plaintiff”) filed this action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the final administrative decision of the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) 

denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits under 

Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”). (ECF No. 1). 

For the reasons expressed herein, the Court recommends the case be 

 

1 Andrew M. Saul became Commissioner of Social Security on June 17, 2019 and is 

therefore substituted for Nancy A. Berryhill as the Defendant in this action. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g); Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
2

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

REMANDED to the ALJ for further analysis on the issue of whether 

Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinions were properly discounted regarding 

Plaintiff’s alleged impairments.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for a period of 

disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, alleging 

a disability beginning May 4, 2013. (AR 16). After his application was 

denied initially and upon reconsideration, Plaintiff requested an 

administrative hearing before and administrative law judge (“ALJ”). (Id.). 

An administrative hearing was held on December 15, 2016. Plaintiff 

appeared and elected to proceed without counsel, after being advised of his 

right to representation. (Id.). Also appearing and testifying were Dr. Joseph 

Gaeta, M.D., a medical expert (ME) and Gloria Lasoff a vocational expert 

(VE). (Id.). On March 1, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s 

claim for benefits. (AR 16-28). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

 Sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act allow 

unsuccessful applicants to seek judicial review of a final agency decision of 

the Commissioner. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). The scope of judicial 

review is limited in that a denial of benefits will not be disturbed if it is 

supported by substantial evidence and contains no legal error. Id.; see also

Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin, 359 F.3d 1190, 1993 (9th Cir. 2004). 

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

preponderance. Sandqathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). “[I]t 

is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
3

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

(9th Cir. 1995)). The court must consider the record as a whole, weighing 

both the evidence that supports and detracts from the Commissioner’s 

conclusions. Desrosiers v. Sec’y of Health & Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 

576 (9th Cir. 1988). If the evidence supports more than one rational 

interpretation, the court must uphold the ALJ’s decision. Batson, 359 F.3d at 

1193. When the evidence is inconclusive, “questions of credibility and 

resolution of conflicts in the testimony are functions solely of the Secretary.” 

Sample v. Schweiker, 694 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 1982).

Even if a reviewing court finds that substantial evidence supports the 

ALJ’s conclusions, the court must set aside the decision if the ALJ failed to 

apply the proper legal standards in weighing the evidence and reaching his or 

her decision. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1193. Section 405(g) permits a court to 

enter a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the Commissioner’s 

decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The reviewing court may also remand the 

matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Id

B. Summary of the ALJ’s Findings

In rendering his decision, the ALJ followed the Commissioner’s

five step sequential evaluation process. See CFR § 404.1520. At step one, the 

ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since 

May 4, 2013, the alleged onset date. (AR 18)2.

At step two, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe 

impairments: Conn’s Disease, resulting in hypertension and congestive heart 

failure; and coronary disease. (Id.). However, the ALJ found, based on the 

record, Plaintiff “had no severe medically determinable” impairment from 

 

2 “AR” refers to the Certified Administrative Record filed on November 19, 2018. (ECF No. 

8).

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
4

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

May 4, 2013 to May 3, 2014. Accordingly, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s 

application for that timeframe at step two. (Id.). But the ALJ did find the 

record indicates the [Plaintiff] received treatment for the above severe 

impairments beginning May 4, 2014, for a period of more than 12 consecutive 

months. Thus, the ALJ continued his sequential analysis. (AR 19). 

According to the ALJ “the medical and other evidence that the 

[Plaintiff’s] medically determinable impairments of dizziness, muscle spasm, 

glaucoma, foot and ankle edema, allergies, kidney disease, and a fractured 

femur and tibia cause only a slight abnormality that would have no more 

than minimal effect on his ability to work and are, therefore, nonsevere.” 

(Id.).

At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment 

or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the 

impairments listed in the Commissioner’s Listing of Impairments. (AR 20). 

(citing 20 CFR Par 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 

404.1525 and 404.1526). 

Next, after considering the entire record, the ALJ determined that 

Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work s 

defined in 20CFR 404.1567(b). (AR 21). The Plaintiff would be limited to 

lifting or carrying no more than 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 

frequently; standing or walking for six hours each in an eight-hour workday; 

and sitting for six hours in an eight-hour workday. The [Plaintiff] is never 

able to climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds...must avoid concentrated exposure 

to temperature extremes, so typical office environment would be an example 

of an acceptable environment.” (Id.). The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff must 

avoid all exposure to unprotected heights. (Id.). 

The ALJ then proceeded to step four of the sequential evaluation 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
5

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

process. He found Plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant work as 

a financial manager, DOT 160.162-018. (AR 26). For the purpose of his step 

five determination, the ALJ accepted the testimony of VE Gloria Lasoff. The 

VE determined that a person with the same age, education, work experience 

and RFC as the Plaintiff, “would be able to perform this past relevant work 

as actually performed by the Plaintiff and as generally performed in the 

regional and national economy.” (Id.). 

C. Issues in Dispute

Plaintiff has raised two issues as grounds for reversal and remand; 1) 

whether the ALJ properly categorized Plaintiff’s past relevant work; and 2)

whether the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s treating physician’s 

opinion. 

1. Whether the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s treating 

physician’s opinion

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ improperly disregarded the opinions of

Dr Pamela Lam, D.O. who was his treating physician during the relevant 

time period. (ECF No. 16 at 8). Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ 

assignment of “little weight” to Dr. Lam’s opinion was not supported with 

specific reasons related to the record medical evidence. (ECF 16 at 9). 

Plaintiff argues that “[t]he ALJ must explain the weight given to the medical 

opinion evidence, giving specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting 

discarded opinion evidence.” (Id.). citing Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 

(9th Circuit 1995). 

Defendant responds by acknowledging that the “ALJ must give good 

reasons for the weight that he gives to a treating source opinion and explain 

the weight that he gives to all medical source opinions.” (ECF 19-1 at 8). 

Citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (treating sources), (e)(2)(ii) (all sources). 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
6

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

Defendant goes on to argues that “here, the ALJ gave good reasons for the 

weight he gave to each opinion in this record.” (ECF 19-1 at 9). 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 

625, 632 (2007):

The opinions of treating doctors should be given more weight than 

the opinions of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester [v. 

Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir.1995) (as amended).] Where the 

treating doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it 

may be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons supported 

by substantial evidence in the record. Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Even if the treating doctor's opinion is 

contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may not reject this 

opinion without providing “specific and legitimate reasons” 

supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 830, 

quoting Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir.1983). This 

can be done by setting out a detailed and thorough summary of 

the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his 

interpretation thereof, and making findings. Magallanes [v. 

Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir.1989).] The ALJ must do more 

than offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own 

interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors', are 

correct. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421–22 (9th Cir.1988).

In this case, the ALJ stated that he assigned “little weight” to the 

opinions of treating physician Dr. Lam, D.O. The ALJ cited to a short letter 

signed jointly Dr. Lam and Dr. Renee Smilde. (AR 398). The letter assessed 

Plaintiff with “’multiple complex and serious medical issues starting more 

than a year ago which have required hospitalization and multiple clinic visits 

for work-up and management.’” (AR 26). The ALJ further stated “[t]hey 

opined that the [Plaintiff’s] general functional status is much impaired, and 

he continues to be unable to maintain any occupation at this time....” (Id.). 

After this brief summary the ALJ concluded his analysis by stating “these 

opinions are not consistent with the objective medical evidence in the record 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
7

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

as a whole, because they are brief, vague, and provide inadequate 

justification for their conclusion, making no reference to any of the objective

medical findings in his treatment records to support their assessment.” (Id.).

As noted by Plaintiff, Dr. Lam “acted as [Plaintiff’s] treating physician 

during the relevant period in time.” (ECF 16 at 8). Plaintiff cites twelve 

treatment records signed by Dr. Lam. Notably, a review of the record

evidence shows additional treatment records from Dr. Lam. (AR 506, 507-

518, 537-538, 540, 688-687, 703). In his opinion, the ALJ acknowledged and 

referenced to only the letter written by Dr. Lam on April 29, 2015, and none 

of her treatment records for Plaintiff spanning almost two years – November 

2014 through October 2016. (AR 398). This is a relevant time frame in 

support of Plaintiff’s period of alleged disability. Accordingly, the ALJ’s

stated reason for assigning little weight to Dr. Lam’s overall opinions is 

insufficient and is not a “specific, legitimate reason” that is supported by 

“substantial evidence.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d at 634. 

2. The ALJ erred in defining Plaintiff’s past relevant work at 

step five

As a result of the Court’s inability to affirm the ALJ’s reasons for

rejecting the treating physician’s opinions, it is unnecessary to reach the 

other disputed issue raised by Plaintiff. Because of the Court is unable to 

affirm the ALJ’s rejection of the treating physician’s opinions, the Court is 

also unable to affirm the ALJ’s RFC determination. Since the Court cannot 

affirm the RFC it follows that it is futile for the Court to consider the other 

claim of error raised by Plaintiff (i.e. whether the ALJ erred at step five of the 

sequential evaluation process). 

3. Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings 

 “[A] court has discretion to remand for further proceedings when an ALJ 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
8

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

has committed legal error in denying benefits.” Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 

1172, 1175-78 (9th Cir. 2000). The record does not support the ALJ’s decision 

to accord little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician absent 

providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. 

See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F. 3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002).

When error exists in an administrative determination, “the proper 

course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for 

additional investigation or explanation.” INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 

(2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 

882, 886 (9th Cir. 2004). On remand, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion of 

Plaintiff’s treating physician in accordance with the applicable law. 

Accordingly, the Court recommends the case be remanded for further 

administrative action consistent with the findings presented herein.3

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court RECOMMENDS that the case be 

REMANDED for further proceedings. This Report and Recommendation of 

the undersigned Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of California. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objection to this report 

must be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than , 

September 12, 2019. The document should be captioned “Objections to 

 

3 To the extent it may be relevant on remand, the Court notes that a discrepancy exists in 

the documents of the record that shows a conflict in Plaintiff’s date of birth. 

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
9

18cv2078-W-MDD

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

Report and Recommendations.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be 

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than September 19,

2019. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 

specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: August 29, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02078-W-MDD Document 21 Filed 08/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9