Court Opinion

ID: 9879128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:58:48.66322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:46.017530
License: Public Domain

LEITMAN, District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the Court that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinion of Dr. Kenneth Lucero. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s determination that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of (1) examining doctors Robert Marselle, Ph.D., and Kara Cross, Ph.D., and (2) reviewing doctors David Biscardi, Ph.D, and Yanira Olaya, M.D. As the Court fairly notes, there were conflicts among certain aspects of the opinions offered by these four mental health professionals. But the opinions were consistent in one important respect: Drs. Marselle, Cross, and Biscardi opined that Ms. Phelps was moderately limited in maintaining regular attendance and performing work activities on a consistent basis. And although Dr. Olaya did not opine on that precise point, he did conclude that Ms. Phelps was moderately impaired in maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace. “To reject an uncontradicted opinion of a[n] ... examining doctor, an ALJ must state clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). I do not believe that the ALJ satisfied this standard with respect to his rejection of the opinions of Drs. Marselle and Cross (as largely confirmed by Drs. Biscardi and Olaya) that Ms. Phelps was moderately limited as described above.