Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01022/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01022-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEODOSO SERRANO MORENO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Officially as

Commissioner of Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the court is the review of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #

21) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Peter C. Lewis, recommending that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 12) be denied and Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15) be granted.

BACKGROUND

On November 28, 2005, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for Supplemental

Security Income (“SSI”), alleging he was suffering from schizophrenia and unable to work.

(Administrative Record, Doc. # 10 (“AR”), 24-26). The Social Security Administration denied

Plaintiff’s application for SSI initially on March 26, 2006 and upon reconsideration on

December 4, 2006. (AR 24-36).

On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”). (AR 37). On April 24, 2007, Plaintiff appeared and testified at the hearing

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 1 of 8
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 October 30, 2007, Plaintiff reapplied for SSI. (Doc. # 12 at 6). This application

was approved by the Social Security Administration on April 2, 2008. (Doc. # 12 at 7). At

issue in this appeal is a closed period of benefits from November 28, 2005 through October

30, 2007. (Doc. # 12 at 7).

- 2 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

before the ALJ. (AR 13, 225-77). Also appearing and testifying were Sidney Bolter, M.D.,

an impartial medical expert (AR 248-73); Mark Remas, an impartial vocational expert (AR

273-77); and Flerida Hernandez, Plaintiff’s sister (AR 237-43).

On September 26, 2007, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s application for SSI in a written

decision. (AR 13-23).

On November 28, 2007, Plaintiff filed a request for review of the ALJ’s decision. (AR

9). On April 7, 2008, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, rendering the

decision of the ALJ final. (AR 4-9).

On June 6, 2008, Plaintiff commenced this action for judicial review pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 405(g).1

 (Doc. # 1). On March 26, 2009, 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 Motion

for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 21).

On April 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc.

# 22). On April 27, 2009, Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. # 23).

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

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 2 of 8
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 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

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

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings that: (1) the ALJ sufficiently

considered the lay testimony of Plaintiff’s sister, and (2) the ALJ properly discounted the MiniMental Status Examination and Psychiatric Review Form opinions rendered by Plaintiff’s

treating psychiatrist.

I. Testimony of Plaintiff’s Sister

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ “failed to consider and comment on Flerida Hernandez’s

testimony regarding Mr. Moreno’s ability to work which is competent evidence.” (Doc. # 22

at 2).

“In determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider lay witness

testimony concerning a claimant’s ability to work.” Stout v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 454

F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). An ALJ must give reasons for discounting

this type of evidence and cannot disregard it without comment. See Nguyen v. Chater, 100

F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996). “[I]f the ALJ wishes to discount the testimony of lay

witnesses, he must give reasons that are germane to each witness.” Stout, 454 F.3d at 1053

(quotation omitted). “However, in interpreting the evidence and developing the record, the

ALJ does not need to discuss every piece of evidence.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341

F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).

Plaintiff’s sister, Flerida Hernandez, submitted two third-party “Function Reports,”

provided information to Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, and testified at the hearing before the

ALJ. (AR 21, 71-86, 237-43). In the first Function Report, dated December 19, 2005,

Hernandez stated that Plaintiff slept all the time; that he always needed to be told to attend to

his personal hygiene; that he did not prepare his own meals and had no interest in eating; that

he had to be told to do housework; and that he got extremely anxious when he went outside

or had control over money. (AR 71-78). In the second Function Report, dated June 6, 2006,

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 3 of 8
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 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

Hernandez stated that she constantly needed to tell Plaintiff when tend to his hygiene, eat and

take his medicine; that he did not do any housework; that he locked himself in his room and

slept all day; that he had no interest in anything; that he was unable to handle money; that he

was very withdrawn; that he had a hard time concentrating; that he was constantly crying; and

that he said that he felt like dying. (AR 79-85).

In a progress note dated December 8, 2006, Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, Dr. Bucardo made

the following notation: 

Sister reports that patient observes partial compliance with meds and continues

to isolate and practically never leaves his room. Patient has been unable to

obtain/maintain employment. He is constantly looking over his shoulder,

distrusts most people he comes into contact with and has episodic agitation and

AH with commands.

(AR 212). In a progress note dated February 9, 2007, Dr. Bucardo wrote: “Sister reports that

patient observes partial compliance with meds. Patient has been unable to obtain/maintain

employment. He is constantly looking over his shoulder, distrusts most people he comes into

contact with and has episodic agitation and AH with commands.” (AR 211).

At the April 24, 2007 hearing, Hernandez testified that when Plaintiff “got sick,” he

would lock himself in his room, would be afraid to come out, would sleep during the day,

would barely eat, and would have to be told to clean himself, shave, and change his clothes.

(AR 242-43). Hernandez also testified that on one occasion in 2006, Plaintiff went to Mexico

by himself and “he took too much medication or whatever the problem was so then they had

to take him to ... his older doctor.” (AR 240).

The ALJ does not reference Hernandez’s testimony or Function Reports, but she does

reference Hernandez’s statements in the two progress notes. (AR 21). The ALJ states: on

December 8, 2006, “[t]he claimant’s sister reported that the claimant was only partially

compliant with his medications, was isolating himself, and had been unable to obtain a job, and

was currently looking over his shoulder”; and “[o]n February 9, 2007, the claimant’s sister

again reported that the claimant was only partially compliant with treatment.” (AR 21).

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge states:

In her opinion, the ALJ did not refer to all of the statements made by Ms.

Hernandez but did consider those significant and probative: that Plaintiff was

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

only partially compliant with medication; that he isolated himself; that he was

unable to obtain a job; and that he was paranoid. Although the ALJ did not

question the credibility of Ms. Hernandez’s statements, she did use evidence

provided by Ms. Hernandez–namely Plaintiff’s paranoia, his noncompliance

with medication and treatment regimens, and his inability to obtain a job–to

bolster her finding that Plaintiff was not disabled because he could have had the

ability to work had he properly and consistently taken his medications.

(Doc. # 21 at 12 (footnote omitted) (citing Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d

1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that impairments that can be effectively controlled with

medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for Social Security

benefits)).

Plaintiff objects to the “ALJ’s mere recital of a minor fraction of Ms. Hernandez’s

testimony,” and contends that “even if the ALJ accepted in part and discounted in part Ms.

Hernandez’s testimony, she was required to give reasons that are germane to Ms. Hernandez

for discounting her testimony regarding Mr. Moreno’s ability to work.” (Doc. # 22 at 2). 

After reviewing the ALJ’s decision and the Administrative Record de novo, the Court

finds that the ALJ considered the significant and probative aspects of Hernandez’s statements.

Cf. Vincent on Behalf of Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The

Secretary ... need not discuss all evidence presented to her. Rather, she must explain why

significant probative evidence has been rejected.”) (quotation omitted). The Magistrate Judge

properly concluded that the ALJ did not reject Hernandez’s testimony. (Doc. # 21 at 12). The

ALJ used Hernandez’s evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled

because he could have had the ability to work had he properly and consistently taken his

medications. (AR 18, 21). None of Hernandez’s statements were inconsistent with this

conclusion.

II. Mini-Mental Status Examination and Psychiatric Review Form

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding the Mini-Mental Status

Examination and Psychiatric Review Form opinions rendered by Dr. Bucardo. (Doc. # 22 at

3-5). Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred by: (a) finding that the ALJ properly

discounted the opinions because they were obtained for advocative purposes and were not

supported by Dr. Bucardo’s treatment notes; and (b) finding that the Psychiatric Review Form

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 5 of 8
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

- 6 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

is a fraudulent document.

A. Advocative Purposes and Lack of Support

In the Mini-Mental Status Examination and the Psychiatric Review Form, Dr. Burcado

found that Plaintiff had schizophrenia, a global functioning score of 37, and would experience

four or more repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration. (AR 208-10,

215-18).

The ALJ stated that the Mini-Mental Status Examination and Psychiatric Review Form

were completed for the purpose of “obtaining supportive documentation,” so “the claimant

could obtain financial aid from the country and not have to work,” and to “exempt[] the

claimant from being tested in connection with his application for citizenship.” (AR 21). The

ALJ stated that “Dr. Bucardo’s findings provide little objective evidence to support his

comments regarding the claimant’s cognitive impairments, indicated in the psychiatric review

form.... The undersigned finds that Dr. Bucardo was actively assisting the claimant’s attempt

to obtain benefits, rather than simply treating the claimant, in that he was undoubtedly aware

that the claimant wanted to become a citizen.” (AR 21).

After reviewing the ALJ’s decision and the Administrative Record de novo, the Court

finds that the ALJ acted within her discretion in discounting the Mini-Mental Status

Examination and the Psychiatric Review Form. Dr. Bucardo’s March 22, 2007 progress notes

reflect that Dr. Bucardo examined Plaintiff “for medical report for INS form.” (AR 208). The

ALJ properly reviewed and summarized Dr. Bucardo’s prior treatment notes, and the ALJ

found the Mini-Mental Status Examination and the Psychiatric Review Form to be inconsistent

with those prior notes. (AR 18-21). The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to

discount the findings and conclusions of the Mini-Mental Status Examination and the

Psychiatric Review Form, and that decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Saelee

v. Chater, 94 F.3d 520, 522-23 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that an ALJ has the discretion to find

a treating doctor’s opinion to be untrustworthy because it was obtained for advocative purposes

and because it varies from the doctor’s own treatment notes); see also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427

F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n ALJ may only reject [a treating doctor’s opinion] by

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.”) (citation

omitted).

B. “Fraudulent Document”

When the discussing the Psychiatric Review Form, the ALJ stated: 

Although this form appears to be signed by Dr. Bucardo, aside from the date, few of the

comments on the form are written by him. In another hand are comments by an

unidentified person. They include: ‘claimant suffers from chronic paranoid

schizophrenia with significant cognitive impairment...’ It is interesting to note that Dr.

Bucardo’s diagnosis has been psychosis, not otherwise specified, throughout, and not

chronic paranoid schizophrenia.

(AR 21).

Referencing this language, the Magistrate Judge stated: “[T]he ALJ noted that it was

questionable whether the psychiatric review form was actually signed by Dr. Bucardo and that

few of the comments on the form were made by him. The ambiguity and indications of fraud

evidenced in the document were another legitimate reason for the ALJ to reject it outright.”

(Doc. # 21 at p.15 line 28 - p.16 line 3). The Magistrate Judge also stated in a footnote: “Upon

reviewing the form, the undersigned believes that the psychiatric review form is a fraudulent

document. It does not appear to be signed and dated by Dr. Bucardo, and there are multiple

different handwritings on the document.” (Doc. # 21 at 16 n.3).

Plaintiff objects to this language from the Report and Recommendation on the grounds

that it misstates the ALJ’s findings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court will not adopt

the following lines from the Report and Recommendation: page 15, line 28 through page 16,

line 3, and page 16, footnote 3. (Doc. # 21 at 15-16).

The Court finds that this error by the Magistrate Judge is harmless. The ALJ provided

specific and legitimate reasons to discount the findings and conclusions of the Mini-Mental

Status Examination and the Psychiatric Review Form, and that decision is supported by

substantial evidence. See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2006)

(holding that error which is inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination is

harmless error).

CONCLUSION

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

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 - 08cv1022-WQH-PCL

Plaintiff objected, and after generally reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the

ALJ’s decision in light of the Administrative Record, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge

correctly evaluated the facts and applied the controlling law in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Court ADOPTS all portions

of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 21) except for page 15, line 28 through page 16,

line 3, and page 16, footnote 3; (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 12) is

DENIED; and (3) Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 15) is

GRANTED.

The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.

DATED: July 17, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01022-WQH-PCL Document 24 Filed 07/17/09 Page 8 of 8