Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01480/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

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 holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WENDY L. ABANGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1480 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pending before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Having 1

reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order

seeking further briefing. Based on the briefs submitted, the administrative record, and the file

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than March 16, 2007, Defendant shall file a

supplemental brief addressing the following issues: 1) whether or not the Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) fulfilled his duty to fully and fairly develop the record; 2) whether or not the ALJ erred by

giving “controlling weight” to the opinions of non-treating sources, and if so whether that error is

harmless; and 3) whether or not the ALJ erred by giving greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Jamil

Case 5:05-cv-01480-PVT Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER, page 2

than the opinions of Dr. Linder and Dr. Minsky. No later than March 30, 2007, Plaintiff may file a

supplemental brief responding to the Defendant’s supplemental brief.

In social security disability cases the ALJ has an independent “‘duty to fully and fairly

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

80 F.3d 1273, 1288 (9 Cir. 1996) (quoting Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9 Cir. 1983)). th th

This duty extends to represented as well as unrepresented claimants. Id. The ALJ’s duty to develop

the record fully is heightened where the claimant may be mentally ill, and thus unable to protect her

own interests. See DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9 Cir. 1991) (“In cases of mental th

impairments, this duty is especially important.”) If the ALJ needs to know the basis of a doctor’s

opinion, this duty requires that he conduct an appropriate inquiry. See Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d

599, 602 (9 Cir. 1998). The ALJ may discharge this duty in several ways, including: subpoenaing th

the claimant’s doctors for additional records (or live testimony), submitting questions to the

claimant’s doctors, continuing the hearing, or keeping the record open after the hearing to allow

supplementation of the record. Ibid.; see also, Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1288. In the present case, it

appears from statements on the record at the hearing before the ALJ that several of Plaintiff’s

medical records were not in the administrative record. (Tr. 331.) It also appears that the ALJ found

at least one of the medical evaluations ambiguous. (Tr. 333-34.) Thus, it would appear that the ALJ

should have sought to obtain the missing records and an explanation of those records he found

ambiguous.

In his opinion, the ALJ expressly stated that he had given “controlling weight” to the

assessments of the medical consultants at the state agency and the consultative examiner, Dr. Jamil. 

(Tr. 124.) None of these individuals were treating sources. Pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-

2p, “opinions from sources other than treating sources can never be entitled to ‘controlling weight.’”

Thus this appears to be clear legal error on the part of the ALJ. 

Dr. Jamil’s report states he did not review any of Plaintiff’s medical records. There is no

mention in his report of Plaintiff’s suicide attempt in November of 2000. Nor is there any mention

of her history of auditory hallucinations. And the report includes at least one potentially significant

factual error. In the final paragraph of his report Dr. Jamil states “Her depression was precipitated

Case 5:05-cv-01480-PVT Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

by her divorce,” which is inconsistent with his comments on the first page noting that her depression

started in 1995, and that the divorce three years later in 1998 was “sudden” and that Abangan was

not prepared for it. Given the deficiencies in Dr. Jamil’s evaluation, it would appear that the ALJ’s

decision to accord Dr. Jamil’s opinion more weight than the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating

physicians may have constituted legal error.

The court is seeking this additional briefing because the parties did not address the foregoing

matters in their original briefing. Because the court is considering taking these matters into account

in its ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties are entitled to notice

and an opportunity to brief the court on their respective positions. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 326 (1986) (noting that courts may enter summary judgment sua sponte so long as the losing

party was on notice).

Dated: 2/22/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01480-PVT Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 3