Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01605/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01605-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Defendant
Jo Anne E. Haseltine
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 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction for all

proceedings, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JO ANNE E. HASELTINE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social

Security,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-1605 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Jo Ann E. Haseltine seeks review of the

Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision that she did

not qualify for social security insurance disability benefit

payments prior to September 1, 2001.1 The parties have filed

cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth

below, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and the matter is

REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security to determine

the onset date of plaintiff’s disability. Defendant’s motion

is DENIED.

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 6
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 According to the transcript of the hearing, Judge

Lazaran stated “I’ve gone over this pretty thorough and, you

know, I think, maybe I could suggest a sort of compromise in

this case and that would be that there’d [sic] be an onset

related to the time frame when Dr. [Newkirk] indicated her

functioning was less than it had been. She’s been a bit

ambiguous about that. So, I think, you’re going to need to

talk to her about this. I don’t know if it’s acceptable to her

but it appears that by September, 2001, he thought that she was

much more limited than she had been before and that’s, somewhat

consistent with the statement from Dr. Shaunbraun who provided

a statement, I believe, in July, 2001 although I don’t believe

he’s been treating her. So I’m not sure, you know, how useful

that statement is but why don’t you talk to [plaintiff] about

whether she’d be willing to accept that onset date in this

case.” (AT 566.)

2

On March 22, 2001, plaintiff filed an application for

benefits contending her disability onset date was May 20,

2000. (Administrative Transcript [“AT”] 227.) After her

application was denied several times, she had a hearing before

Administrative Law Judge Lazuran. (AT 60, 67, 77.) She was

accompanied by a non-lawyer representative. 

During the hearing, Judge Lazuran suggested a compromise

finding of disability with an onset date of September 2001.2

(AT 566.) Plaintiff accepted the compromise, Judge Lazuran

excused the vocational expert who was set to testify and

issued a favorable decision on July 16, 2002 finding plaintiff

disabled with an onset date of September 1, 2001. (AT 30 -

41.) 

After the decision, plaintiff received a Notice of Award,

informing her that her benefits would be reduced to reflect a

worker’s compensation payment. (AT 159 - 166.) Plaintiff

appealed the workers’ compensation offset issue to the Appeals

Council. (AT 100.) Her appeal was silent as to the issue of

the compromised onset date. Id. The onset issue was not

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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

addressed in subsequent decisions and reviews. (AT 44, 55, 58

- 59, 107, 105, 123, 142.) 

On March 30, 2004, plaintiff’s representative, while

appealing a decision regarding the offset issue and an

overpayment issue, for the first time addressed the onset

issue. (AT 147 - 48.) The Appeals Council remanded

plaintiff’s case, but not on the issue of the onset date. (AT

149 -151.) Administrative Law Judge Reite heard the remand

but denied a “motion to reopen” Judge Lazuran’s decision as to

the onset date. (AT 19 - 27.) Plaintiff appealed Judge

Reite’s decision and the Appeals Counsel denied her request

for review. (AT 478 -79, 9 - 12.) This suit followed.

The Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny

benefits will only be disturbed if it is not supported by

substantial evidence or is based on legal error. Batson v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004);

Lewis v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007). Here

Judge Lazuran’s compromise offer constituted legal error. 

Although plaintiff is now represented by counsel, her

claims are not always cogently presented or supported by

authority. What is clear is that plaintiff objects that

Judge Lazuran offered a compromise rather than developing the

record further on the issue of her onset date. 

Based on the medical record and plaintiff’s testimony, I

find that there was substantial evidence to support a finding

that plaintiff was disabled. In particular, her treating

physician, Dr. Newkirk, had opined on September 28, 2001 that

plaintiff was “incapable of accepting gainful employment,

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 6
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 See also Brown v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 441, 443 (9th

Cir. 1983)(An ALJ has a “special duty to fully and fairly

develop the record and to assure that the claimant’s interests

are considered.”); Delorme v. Sullivan, 924 F.2d 841, 849 (9th

Cir. 1991)(ALJ’s duty to develop the record “exists even when

the claimant is represented.”)

4 Because I find that the ALJ’s conduct was

inconsistent with her statutory duties, I do not reach

plaintiff’s constitutional claims.

4

even at the sedentary or semi–sedentary levels”. (AT 441.) 

Dr. Newkirk stated in his report that he had been treating

plaintiff since June of 2000 for an injury that occurred in

December of 1999. (AT 440.) While it is true that Dr.

Newkirk did not opine as to the onset date, other than the

fact that his letter is dated September 28, 2001, there is

little reason to believe that the onset date was September 1,

2001 and, judging from the medical history, many reasons to

believe it may have been earlier. At that point, Judge

Lazuran had a “duty to investigate the facts and develop the

arguments both for and against granting benefits”. Sims v.

Apfel, 530 U.S. 102, 111 (2000).3 This could have been

accomplished by asking Dr. Newkirk for a further report,

having plaintiff examined by another doctor, or, perhaps, by

listening to the vocational expert who was waiting to

testify. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(e)(1). Instead of fulfilling

this duty, Judge Lazuran cut short the proceedings by

offering the compromise. This is where she erred legally,

inasmuch as nothing in the statutes or regulations that

govern an ALJ’s duties at a disability hearing suggest that

the ALJ can avoid developing a complete record by offering a

compromise.4

 

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 4 of 6
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 Even after the Court requested supplemental briefs on

the question. Defendant did however argue that Judge Lazuran’s

offer to plaintiff to stipulate to the September 2001 onset

date did not constitute an offer of compromise. However, the

record states otherwise. (AT 566.) 

5

Defendant does not contend that ALJs have the authority

to offer a compromise to applicant.5 Instead, defendant

argues that this Court does not have the authority to review

Judge Lazuran’s 2002 decision, because plaintiff did not

raise the onset issue when she first appealed the ruling

pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.986. Judge Reite refused to

consider the onset issue for that reason. In so arguing,

defendant is confusing exhaustion of administrative remedies

with exhaustion of issues.

As Sims v. Apfel makes clear, plaintiff exhausted her

administrative remedies when she appealed Judge Lazuran’s

ruling, even though on different grounds. “Claimants who

exhaust administrative remedies need not also exhaust issues

in a request for review by the Appeals Council in order to

preserve judicial review of those issues.” Sims, 530 U.S. at

112. This is because the need for issue exhaustion is weak

when the nature of the proceedings, as they are in the social

security context, are non-adversarial. Id. at 113. 

Because plaintiff had not raised the onset date issue

earlier, Judge Reite concluded plaintiff could not request

him to review the issue and denied her “motion to reopen”

Judge Lazuran’s decision. (AT 20 - 21, 27.) Defendant

contends that Judge Reite’s determination not to reopen Judge

Lazuran’s 2002 decision was a discretionary decision pursuant

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6 Plaintiff’s request that the court make twelve other

findings and determinations regarding her disability status is

DENIED. 

6

to 20 C.F.R. § 404.903(l), not a final decision that would be

subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) absent a

colorable constitutional claim. See Califano v. Sanders, 430

U.S. 99, 106 - 07 (1977); Taylor v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 872,

877 (9th Cir. 1985). Unlike Califano and Taylor, the onset

issue did not need to reopened, notwithstanding counsel’s

choice of words, because plaintiff was still going through

the review process. This court is reviewing Judge Lazuran’s

conduct. Applying Sims, plaintiff is not precluded from

seeking judicial review of the onset date merely because she

did not address that issue in her initial request for review

to the Appeals Council. 530 U.S. at 113. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED IN PART and the matter is REMANDED to the

Commissioner of Social Security to determine the onset date

of plaintiff’s disability.6

 Defendant shall submit a proposed

judgment by December 28, 2007.

Dated: December 10, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Haseltine v. Astrue\MSJ.REMAND.FINAL.VERSION.BZ.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-01605-BZ Document 17 Filed 12/10/07 Page 6 of 6