Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01469-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Rita Vargas De Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA VARGAS DE RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-CV-01469-AWI-BAM

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Rita Vargas Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental 

security income payments based on disability pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

The matter is before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted without oral argument to 

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs as well as 

the entire record in this case, the Court requests additional briefing on the ALJ’s evaluation of 

medical opinion testimony. 

II. DISCUSSION

In the ALJ opinion, the ALJ briefly addressed Dr. Sablan’s opinion. See Doc. 12, Attach. 4 at 66. 

However, the Court’s review of the ALJ’s decision does not indicate the ALJ discussed her reasons for 

discounting or rejecting Dr. Sablan’s opinions, nor is there any discussion of the weight attached to Dr. 

Case 1:12-cv-01469-AWI-BAM Document 27 Filed 02/27/14 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

2

Sablan’s opinions. See, Id. The ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinion testimony is presented in its 

entirety as follows: 

Medical and opinion evidence is evaluated in accordance with the requirements of 20 

CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 92-2p, 96-6p and 06-3p. I give substantial weight 

to the opinion of Dr. Swanson, which was based upon a thorough, well-documented 

examination. Additionally, other evidence supports the doctor’s diagnosis of 

malingering, as discussed below. I give some weight to the opinion of Dr. Nowlan, 

which occurred prior to the claimant’s coronary artery bypass grafts; however I find that 

following surgery her ability to stand and walk increased. Further, he failed to quantify 

her postural limitations, and did not take into consideration the weakness in her right 

upper extremities. The results of Dr. Bhatia’s examination are contradicted by other 

evidence, as discussed below. Because there are indications of malingering, and 

contradictory evidence which suggests the claimant was exaggerating symptoms, I give 

his opinion no weight. I give no weight to the State agency opinion that the claimant’s 

physical impairments are non-severe. This is inconsistent with the weight of the medical 

evidence. I give weight to the State agency opinion that the claimant’s mental impairment 

is non-severe; this is consistent with the evidence and the lack of any mental health 

treatment. 

Doc. 12, Attach. 4, at 66-67. 

The ALJ discussed the reasons for accepting and rejecting the opinions of the various other 

medical professionals; however, the ALJ did not discuss Dr. Sablan’s opinions. The parties did not 

specifically address the ALJ’s apparent failure to discuss the specific and legitimate reasons for 

rejecting or affording lesser weight to Dr. Sablan’s opinions and whether this is legal error. See,

Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 n. 3 (9th Cir.1988) (“The ALJ must either accept the opinions 

of [claimant's] treating physicians or give specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting them”); 

Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004)

(Although the ALJ does not have to follow the medical opinion of the treating physician, he “must 

give specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding the opinion of the treating physician”); Sigala v. 

Astrue, No. 08-cv-1000-JTL, 2009 WL 960797 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“An ALJ cannot avoid these 

requirements simply by not mentioning the treating physician's opinion and making findings 

contrary to it. . . . The Court cannot be left to speculate as to what would have been the ALJ's 

specific reasons for rejecting the treating physician's opinion. . . . the ALJ's silent disregard of 

plaintiff's treating physician's opinion constitutes error”); Battle v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-829-WQH 

(WMC), 2012 WL 985710 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (“[The ALJ] did not address the opinion of treating 

Case 1:12-cv-01469-AWI-BAM Document 27 Filed 02/27/14 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

3

physician Mark Kruper, or explain what, if any weight, was afforded to it in light of the record as a 

whole. . . the ALJ must still address why he gave no apparent weight to Dr. Kruper's opinion”); see 

also, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (In the event the treating physican’s opinion is not 

entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ is instructed to consider certain specified factors in 

determining the weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician).

The Court requests additional briefing as to whether the ALJ’s failure to explain her reasons 

for rejecting Dr. Sablan’s testimony, specifically, constitutes reversible error and if error, what 

procedurally should occur. Plaintiff shall file her supplemental brief no later than March 7, 2014. 

The Commissioner shall file her response to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief no later than March 14, 

2014. Each supplemental brief shall not exceed ten (10) pages in length. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01469-AWI-BAM Document 27 Filed 02/27/14 Page 3 of 3