Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02625/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02625-1/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)

---

1

18-CV-2625 JLS (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

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA LURINE MICHAUD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-2625 JLS (MDD)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION, 

(2) GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, 

(4) REVERSING THE DECISION OF 

THE COMMISSIONER, AND 

(5) REMANDING ACTION TO THE 

COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER 

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

(ECF Nos. 15, 16, 19)

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Lisa Lurine Michaud’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.,” ECF No. 15) and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by 

Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security (“Def.’s Mot.,” ECF No. 16). 

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,”

ECF No. 19) recommending that the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion, deny 

Defendant’s Motion, and remand this case for further proceedings. Having reviewed the 

Case 3:18-cv-02625-JLS-MDD Document 20 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-2625 JLS (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

28

Motions, Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R, and the underlying Administrative Record, the 

Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dembin’s R&R in its entirety, GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

Motion, DENIES Defendant’s Motion, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, 

and REMANDS this matter for further administrative action.

BACKGROUND

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

factual and procedural histories underlying the instant Motions. See R&R at 1–3, 4–6, 7–

10. 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 Dembin’s 

R&R. See R&R at 12 (ordering that any objections be filed no later than November 18, 

2019). Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds that it is thorough, well-reasoned, and 

contains no clear error. 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02625-JLS-MDD Document 20 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-2625 JLS (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

28

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

several severe impairments, including moderate to severe degenerative disc disease at L5–

S1 and mild to moderate degenerative disc disease at L2–3, without neural impingement; 

peripheral neuropathy in the bilateral lower extremities; and eczema in the left lower 

extremity. See R&R at 4–5 (citing ECF No. 12 at 39). He then determined that Plaintiff 

had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work and that she was able 

to perform her past relevant work, such as serving as a home attendant, cashier, assembler, 

receptionist, secretary, stock control clerk, and nurse assistant. Id. at 5–6 (citing ECF No. 

12 at 40–41, 43–44).

In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ failed to categorize Plaintiff’s photophobia 

as a severe or non-severe impairment that affected her RFC. Id. at 6. Rather, he relied on 

only four exhibits to conclude that “the record does not document any restrictions” or 

severe visual impairment[s],” id. at 7 (quoting ECF No. 12 at 40), and, therefore, did not 

consider “medical records relating to [Plaintiff’s] photophobia,” see id. at 8–9 (citing ECF 

No. 12 at 589–91, 603, 606, 608–09, 612, 615, 618, 621); “two Disability Determination 

Explanations,” see id. at 9–10 (citing ECF No. 12 at 291, 295–96, 301, 324, 327); or 

“examining physician Thomas J. Sabourin M.D.’s . . . November 13, 2014 orthopedic 

consultation or treating physician John Bokosky M.D.’s . . . February 18, 2014 

examination.” See id. at 10 (citing ECF No. 12 at 587–88, 652–53). Further, the ALJ 

failed to consider the effects of photophobia in determining Plaintiff’s RFC and ability to 

perform past relevant work. See id. (citing ECF No. 12 at 41–45). For example, when the 

ALJ asked the vocational expert (“VE”) whether a person would could not work if any 

acute vision is required or with only occasional acute vision is required could perform 

sedentary work, the VE stated that would be no such work. Id. (citing ECF No. 12 at 

263–65). 

Magistrate Judge Dembin therefore concludes that the ALJ erred at Step 2 by failing 

to consider all evidence of Plaintiff’s photophobia and in determining Plaintiff’s RFC by 

failing to consider the effects of Plaintiff’s photophobia at subsequent steps of the 

Case 3:18-cv-02625-JLS-MDD Document 20 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-2625 JLS (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

28

sequential evaluation. Id. at 10–11. Consequently, he recommends that the Court remand 

this case so that the ALJ may (1) determine whether Plaintiff’s photophobia is a medically 

determinable impairment, and (2) incorporate any credible limitations arising out of 

Plaintiff’s photophobia—regardless of severity—into the RFC. See id. at 11.

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

Further, the Court agrees that remanding pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

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 

11–12.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court: (1) ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge 

Dembin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19), (2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15), (3) DENIES Defendant’s Cross-Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16), (4) REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner 

denying benefits to Plaintiff, and (5) REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further 

administrative action consistent with this Order and Magistrate Judge Dembins’s Report 

and Recommendation. Because this Order concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk

of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02625-JLS-MDD Document 20 Filed 01/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4