Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00656/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00656-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Caroline Colvin
Defendant
Dennis Francis Farley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS FRANCIS FARLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLINE COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00656-VC 

ORDER REQUESTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Having reviewed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court intends to 

raise several issues sua sponte. See Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 112 (2000). The defendant is 

therefore ordered to file a supplemental brief addressing the following by no later than 

Wednesday, November 2, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.:

1. Whether the ALJ erred in failing to evaluate Farley under step three for a listed disability of 

nonconvulsive epilepsy (11.03). See A.R. 78-79; A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F, 26F.

2. Whether the ALJ erred in describing Farley's seizures as occurring only once every two to 

three weeks, despite Dr. Gansaeuer's conclusion that they occurred more frequently than 

Farley had self-reported. See A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F.

3. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Gansaeuer's conclusion that 

Farley's epilepsy didn't allow him to work – a decision the ALJ appears to have made after 

misquoting Dr. Gansaeuer's March 2012 notes. See A.R. Ex. 20F.

4. Whether the ALJ erred in interpreting Dr. Gansaeuer's December 2011 report as supporting

Farley's residual ability to work, despite the report's apparent consistency with Dr. 

Gansaeuer's note in March 2012 that Farley was incapable of work of any kind. See A.R. Ex. 

Case 3:16-cv-00656-VC Document 20 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 2
2

19F, 20F.

5. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Adornato's medical report based on 

its inconsistency with "the evidence of record," despite its apparent similarity to Dr. 

Gansaeuer's reports. Compare A.R. Ex. 26F with A.R. Ex. 19F, 20F.

6. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Forman's evaluation and 

discounting the possibility of deterioration or decompensation, despite the evaluation's 

apparent consistency with Farley's postictal symptoms. See A.R. Ex. 17F.

7. Whether the ALJ erred in treating Dr. Golon's testimony as inconsistent and therefore 

entitled to "little weight," apparently based on Dr. Golon's conclusion that Farley met the 

B criteria in August 2011 and not March 2011. See A.R. 37, 76-77; A.R. Ex. 8F, 17F.

8. Whether the ALJ erred in according "little weight" to Dr. Dixit's evaluation despite its 

apparent consistency with other evaluations and medical notes. See A.R. Ex. 21F.

9. Whether the ALJ adequately supported his conclusion that Farley had exaggerated his 

symptoms and that Farley's limited daily activities were a "lifestyle choice." A.R. 23.

The defendant's supplemental brief should also address whether an immediate award

would be appropriate, rather than a remand for reconsideration, if the Court concludes any of

these errors have occurred.

Additional briefing from Farley's counsel is not required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00656-VC Document 20 Filed 10/28/16 Page 2 of 2