Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00801/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00801-2/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

18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATIE GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Officially as 

Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION,

(2) REVERSING DECISION OF THE 

COMMISSIONER, AND 

(3) REMANDING ACTION TO THE 

COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

(ECF Nos. 13, 14)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Katie Greene and Defendant Commissioner of 

the Social Security Administration Nancy A. Berryhill’s Joint Motion for Judicial Review 

of Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Joint Mot.,” ECF No. 13). 

Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” ECF 

No. 14) recommending that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 

Commissioner denying benefits and remanding this matter for further administrative action 

consistent with her decision. Having reviewed the Joint Motion, Magistrate Judge 

Burkhardt’s R&R, and the underlying Administrative Record, the Court ADOPTS

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s R&R in its entirety, REVERSES the decision of the 

Commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further administrative action.

Case 3:18-cv-00801-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

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

BACKGROUND

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s R&R contains a thorough and accurate recitation of 

the factual and procedural histories underlying the instant Joint Motion. See R&R at 2–3, 

4–11, 19–23, 28–30. This Order incorporates by reference the background as set forth 

therein.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district 

court’s duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The 

district court must “make a de novo determination of those portion 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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United 

States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 

617 (9th Cir. 1989). In the absence of timely objection, however, the Court “need only 

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment 

(citing Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must 

review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, 

but not otherwise.”).

ANALYSIS

In this present case, neither Party has filed objections to Magistrate Judge 

Burkhardt’s R&R. See R&R at 34 (ordering that any objections be filed within fourteen 

days of service with the R&R). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is 

thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. 

In this matter, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that, although 

Plaintiff had several severe impairments, including cervical and lumbar degenerative disc 

disease, and osteoarthritis of the knee and hip, she was not disabled as defined in the Social 

Security Act. R&R 2–3 (citing Administrative Record (“AR,” ECF No. 11) at 11–20.) The 

Case 3:18-cv-00801-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

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

ALJ determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant work as an 

information clerk, customer services representative, and sales attendant. Id. at 3 (citing AR 

at 18–19). Alternatively, the ALJ determined that a hypothetical person with Plaintiff’s 

vocational profile and residual functional capacity could perform the requirements of 

representative occupations, such as a survey worker, that existed in significant numbers in 

the national economy. Id. (citing AR at 19–20). 

In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s testimony 

concerning her subjective symptoms was not credible. Id. at 12 (citing AR at 14). 

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt, however, finds that “the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s 

subjective symptom and pain testimony.” Id. at 18. Specifically, none of the ALJ’s reasons 

for his adverse credibility determination—i.e., that Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily 

living were “somewhat normal” and bore “at least some similarity to those . . . necessary 

for obtaining and maintaining employment,” id. at 13 (quoting AR at 14); that Plaintiff had 

received “routine, conservative and non-emergency treatment since the alleged onset date,”

id. at 15 (quoting AR at 15); and that the objective medical evidence did not support 

Plaintiff’s allegations, id. at 17 (citing AR at 15)—constitute a “clear and convincing” 

reason not to credit Plaintiff’s subjective pain and symptom testimony. See id. at 13–18. 

In particular, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt finds that the ALJ mischaracterized Plaintiff’s 

testimony as to her activities of daily living, which in any event were not readily 

transferable to a work environment. Id. at 13–15. Further, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt 

concludes that the ALJ failed to specify those portions of the record supporting his 

determination that Plaintiff received only routine, conservative, and non-emergency 

treatment, and the evidence the ALJ did discuss did not suggest that her treatment was 

routine and conservative, but rather that “doctors . . . f[ou]nd her complaints credible 

enough to continue to order testing.” Id. at 15–17. 

In determining that Plaintiff was capable of work, the ALJ also discredited the 

testimony of her treating physicians, Dr. John Avery and Dr. Greg Paniccia. Id. at 23–24 

(Dr. Avery) (citing AR 17); id. at 30 (Dr. Paniccia) (citing AR 17–18). Although 

Case 3:18-cv-00801-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

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

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt concludes that Plaintiff’s testimony concerning her activities 

of daily living was mischaracterized by the ALJ and therefore that evidence was not a 

specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting 

the opinion of Plaintiff’s primary care provider, Dr. Avery, id. at 27, Magistrate Judge 

Burkhardt also finds that the ALJ did not err in affording Dr. Avery’s opinion little weight 

because it was generally inconsistent with the mild to moderate findings of the underlying 

objective evidence. Id. at 24–27. 

Finally, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt finds that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion 

of Dr. Paniccia, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist. Id. at 30–33. Specifically, Magistrate 

Judge Burkhardt concludes that Dr. Paniccia’s opinions are not inconsistent with the 

objective medical record, including Dr. Paniccia’s own mental status examinations; the 

notes of Tobias Desjardins, a licensed clinical social worker; and notations in Plaintiff’s 

medical records from Scripps. Id. Further, because the ALJ mischaracterized Plaintiff’s 

testimony concerning her daily activities, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt concludes that this 

did not constitute a specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence in the 

record for rejecting Dr. Paniccia’s opinion. Id. at 33.

The Court finds no clear error in Judge Major’s findings and recommendations. 

Further, the Court agrees that remanding for further administrative proceedings is 

appropriate because additional proceedings could remedy the defects in the ALJ’s decision 

and enhance the administrative record. Id. at 34.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court: (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s 

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14), (2) REVERSES the decision of the 

Commissioner denying benefits to Plaintiff, and (3) REMANDS the case to the 

Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with this Order and Magistrate 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-00801-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18-CV-801 JLS (JLB)

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

Judge Burkhardt’s Report and Recommendation. Because this Order concludes the 

litigation in this matter, the Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00801-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5