Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00740/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00740-0/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 (DIWC)

---

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 05CV0740

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE A. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. __________________________________

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.05-0740 WQH (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

HAYES, Judge: 

Plaintiff George A. Barnett seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s

decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. This Court referred the case to the

Honorable Barbara L. Major, United States Magistrate Judge, for report and recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

Plaintiff seeks an order reversing Defendant’s decision and awarding benefits, or alternatively,

an order remanding the case for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 405(g). Defendant

seeks an order affirming the administrative law judge’s decision to deny benefits. On July 03,

2006, Judge Major issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) detailing the reasons why

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion should be denied and Defendant’s summary judgment

motion should be granted. The parties were permitted to file objections to the R&R on or before

Case 3:05-cv-00740-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 5
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

2 05CV0740

July 21, 2006 and reply to the objections on or before August 11, 2006. On July 21, 2006,

Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. Defendant did not file objections or a Reply. The Court

now issues the following rulings. 

BACKGROUND

The Court incorporates by reference the background set forth in the report and

recommendation. Plaintiff George Barnett is a fifty-eight year old male with a college

education. Plaintiff’s past work includes a manager and co-owner of an Inn, a senior program

manager, a system’s trainer, and a Naval flight officer. Plaintiff last worked on a part time basis

as a senior program manager doing government contract work in January of 2003. Plaintiff has a

history of chronic intractable cough and severe headaches. A brain MRI in 2001 revealed that

Plaintiff had a bilateral subdural hematoma. Plaintiff was prescribed OxyContin and Depakote

by his treating neurologist, Dr. Wang, to suppress his intractable cough and headaches. 

Dr. Wang has treated Plaintiff since 2001. See AR 131. Dr. Wang stated that Plaintiff

was taking 60 to 70 mg of Oxycontin and 500 mg of Depokte daily to control the headaches and

coughs, and that he would need to continue taking the medication daily for the foreseeable

future. Id. Dr. Wang further opined that Plaintiff was “medically controlled and stable” but

could not be gainfully employed in the foreseeable future. Id. 

Plaintiff’s general practitioner, Dr. Lee Ralph, also reported the Plaintiff’s headaches

were constant and at a severity level of ten. See AR 207. Dr. Ralph opined that Plaintiff can sit

for no more than fifteen minutes at a time and that Plaintiff can stand for no more than thirty

minutes at a time. Id. at 208. Within an eight hour work day, Dr. Ralph expects that Plaintiff can

sit or stand for less than two hours. Id. Dr. Ralph opined that Plaintiff must take a ten minute

walk every fifteen minutes, and that Plaintiff can carry up to ten pounds. Id.

Plaintiff testified regarding his daily activities and abilities. See AR 218-221. Plaintiff

testified that he typically wakes up at 7:00 a.m. each morning but then goes back to sleep at

1:00 p.m. Plaintiff then wakes up at about 4:00 p.m. and goes back to sleep about 8:00 or 9:00

p.m. See AR 218. Plaintiff testified that while awake, he can drive a car, complete household

chores and engage in volunteer work. See AR 219, 221. On Mondays, Plaintiff cleans animal

Case 3:05-cv-00740-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 5
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 05CV0740

cages at an animal shelter. See AR 219-220. Every fourth Thursday of the month, Plaintiff

takes animals to visit patients at the VA hospital. Id. Approximately once a week, Plaintiff

visits elderly persons at nursing homes. Id. Plaintiff also teaches grief recovery classes to

church members once every week. See AR 220-221. 

The VA issued Plaintiff a rating of disabled. The certification letter documenting the

VA’s disability rating is dated December 19, 2002. AR 121. At the time of the VA disability

rating determination, Plaintiff was taking 140 mg of OxyContin daily. See Id. By 2004, the time

of the Administrative hearings, Plaintiff’s intake of OxyContin had been reduced to 60-100 mg

daily. See AR 17. Plaintiff testified that he had not experienced head or back pain in years, and

that fatigue was his only limitation. AR 221; AR 229. Plaintiff testified that he had looked for

work, but had not found a job that was sufficiently self-satisfying and high-paying. Id. 

The Administrative Law Judge found Plaintiff capable of performing past relevant work

and therefore not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Magistrate Judge

issued a Report and Recommendation detailing the specific reasons stated by the Administrative

Law Judge and found in the record why Plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Social

Security Act. The Court now issues the following order adopting the Report and

Recommendation. 

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The district court 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)(1); see also United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). When no objections are filed, the district

court may assume the correctness of the magistrate judge’s factual findings and decide the

motion on the applicable law. See Campbell v. United States Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

Cir. 1974). Under such circumstances, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a failure to file

objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings;

Case 3:05-cv-00740-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 5
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 05CV0740

conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo.” Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th

Cir. 1989).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff makes one objection to the R&R. Plaintiff argues that “[t]he ALJ gave no

persuasive, specific, valid reasons for giving less weight to the VA’s rating of 100% disability.” 

See Objections at 1. Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ may give less weight to a VA disability

rating if he gives persuasive, specific, valid reasons for doing so that are supported by the record. 

McCartey v. Massanari, 298 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002). In the instant case the ALJ claims

the ‘opinions of the VA physicians are given great weight.’” Id. Plaintiff further argues that it

would be error for the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation’s independent findings

based on evidence that the ALJ did not discuss. See Objections at 2. 

In McCartey, the Ninth Circuit held, “[b]ecause the VA and SSA criteria for determining

disability are not identical, however, the ALJ may give less weight to a VA disability rating if he

gives persuasive, specific, valid reasons for doing so that are supported by the record.” 

McCartey v. Massanari , 298 F.3d at 1076 (9th Cir. 2002). In McCartey, the ALJ failed to

mention the VA rating altogether in the opinion. Id. 

In the instant case, the ALJ stated that the opinions of the VA physicians are given great

weight because they are consistent with the testimony of the claimant regarding his activities and

the progress notes of his treating physicians. AR at 17. The ALJ further recognized the VA’s

finding that the Plaintiff was 100% disabled, stating that he accorded the VA finding “great

weight.” AR at 17. However, the ALJ ultimately decided that Plaintiff was not disabled within

the meaning of the Social Security Act based on a totality of the evidence. The ALJ considered

the progress notes from VA physicians, the notes and conclusions of the treating physicians, and

Plaintiff’s own testimony, when making his determination. 

The ALJ specifically discussed many of the factors considered in his opinion. See AR

13-19. For example, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s sleeping schedule, volunteer work, ability to

do chores, the amount of OxyContin Plaintiff was taking as of the date of the hearing, and the

fact that Plaintiff stated that he had not found work that would make him enough money or

Case 3:05-cv-00740-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 5
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 05CV0740

would be self-satisfying enough. The ALJ took the opinions of the treating physicians and state

medical physicians into account when issuing his decision, but ultimately found that Plaintiff

was capable of performing past relevant sedentary work within the meaning of the Social

Security Regulations. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court finds that the ALJ gave

persuasive, specific, valid reasons for rejecting the VA’s disability rating that are supported by

the record, and the Magistrate Judge did not error in recommending that Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be granted in favor of Defendant.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

 Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, (2)

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (3) GRANTS Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2006

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00740-WQH-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/07/06 Page 5 of 5