Michael Ogin v. Carolyn W. Colvin

MEMORANDUM

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) offered specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Krall-Catron’s opinions. Those opinions were expressed as “standardized, check-the-box. form[s]” that provided no “supporting reasoning or clini cal findings.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir.2012); accord Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.2004); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2001). The forms expressly note that they contain only “summary conclusions,” and invite doctors to provide “any other assessment information you deem appropriate.” Although Dr. Krall-Catron provided a short letter with one of these forms, that letter neither clarified nor specified her reasons for checking the various boxes she did. The ALJ did not have a duty to request more information from Dr. Krall-Catron. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir.2005). Ogin and his counsel had multiple opportunities to meet their burden of proof by supplying the underlying treatment records supporting Dr. Krall-Catron’s opinion, but failed to do so.

2. The ALJ did not, however, provide the requisite specific and legitimate reasons,…