Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00490/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00490-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

d 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

FILED 

JAN 16-2020 

CLERK US DISTRICT COUJ'!T 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

av DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 

10 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 NICHOLE NICHOLS, 

12 Plaintiff, 

Case No.: 3:19-cv-0490-BEN-LL 

ORDER: 

13 v. 

14 ANDREW SAUL, 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

Defendant. (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; AND 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

[Docket Nos.11, 12, 21] 

21 Plaintiff Nichole Nichols filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security 

22 Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed a 

23 motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. 

24 On November 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez issued a thoughtful and 

25 thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiffs 

26 motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, 

27 and reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand for further administrative 

28 proceedings. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment contends that the Administrative 

3: 19-cv-0490-BEN-LL 

Case 3:19-cv-00490-BEN-LL Document 22 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Law Judge ("ALJ") committed reversible error by (1) failing to give any weight to the 

2 opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Elizabeth Pendragon, and (2) failing to articulate 

3 specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of her examining psychologist, Dr. 

4 Kara Cross.· Magistrate Judge Lopez agreed. 

5 Specifically, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ's opinion does not point to 

6 substantial evidence or adequately explain why Dr. Pendragon's opinion deserved "no 

7 weight" whatsoever. For example, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ's opinion fails 

8 to adequately explain how Plaintiffs daily activities conflict with Dr. Pendragon's opinion, 

9 whether the ALJ properly accounted for the entirety of Plaintiffs statements in her function 

10 report, and whether the ALJ properly considered the transferability of Plaintiffs daily 

11 activities to a workplace environment. Magistrate Judge Lopez additionally found that, in 

12 discrediting Dr. Pendragon's opinion, the ALJ did not identify the specific medical 

13 evidence found inconsistent with Dr. Pendragon's opinions or explain how such evidence 

14 was inconsistent. See, e.g., McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ 

15 erred in giving "broad and vague" reasons for rejecting a treating physician's opinion and 

16 "failing to specify why the ALJ felt the treating physician's opinion was flawed."). 

17 Because the opinion of a treating physician is arguably the most important, the omission is 

18 not harmless. In addition, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ erred by accepting Dr. 

19 Grubbs's opinion and rejecting Dr. Cross's opinion without explanation. This also 

20 necessitates reversal. 

21 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by December 13, 2019 with 

22 replies due by January 3, 2020. Neither party has filed any objections. Accordingly, for 

23 the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. 

24 A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the r_ecommended disposition" of a 

25 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 

26 636(b)(l). "[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 

27 recommendation] that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, 

28 "[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's 

2 

3:19-cv-0490-BEN-LL 

Case 3:19-cv-00490-BEN-LL Document 22 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United 

2 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also Wangv. 

3 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). "Neither the Constitution nor the statute 

4 requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 

5 themselves accept as correct." Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

6 The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. 

7 Nevertheless, the Court has considered the parties' arguments and fully ADOPTS the 

8 Report and Recommendation .. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

9 Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Accordingly, the 

10 Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further 

11 administrative proceedings. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/ 

13 / 

Date: Janua~2020 

/ 

14 /' 

/,(_ z 15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

3: l 9-cv-0490-BEN-LL 

Case 3:19-cv-00490-BEN-LL Document 22 Filed 01/15/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3