Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:7961

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 11 NICOLE C.,1 Case No. 2:20-cv-08773-MAA 12 Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

13 v. ORDER REVERSING DECISION OF

THE COMMISSIONER AND

14 REMANDING FOR FURTHER

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Defendant. 17

18 On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of the 19 Commissioner’s final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security 20 Income pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act. This matter is fully 21 briefed and ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the 22 Commissioner’s final decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further 23 administrative proceedings. 24 /// 25

26 1 Plaintiff’s name is partially redacted in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 27 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 28 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:7962

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

1 On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for 2 Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning on August 1, 2006. 3 (Administrative Record [AR] 15, 74, 81.) Plaintiff alleged disability because of 4 spinal stenosis, scoliosis, nerve damage in her legs and back, a Vitamin D 5 deficiency, anemia, and lumbar radiculopathy. (AR 74.) After Plaintiff’s 6 application was denied initially, she requested a hearing before an Administrative 7 Law Judge (“ALJ”). (AR 15, 92-94.) On January 28, 2020, at a hearing at which 8 Plaintiff appeared with counsel, the ALJ heard testimony from Plaintiff and a 9 vocational expert. (AR 28-63.) 10 In a decision dated February 27, 2020, the ALJ denied Plaintiff’s disability 11 claim after making the following findings pursuant to the Commissioner’s five-step 12 evaluation. (AR 15-23.) Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity 13 since December 19, 2017, the application date. (AR 17.) She had severe 14 impairments consisting of the following: degenerative disc disease of the lumbar 15 spine, spinal stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, peripheral neuropathy, mild scoliosis, 16 history of gastric bypass, chronic pain syndrome, and status post right SI fusion. 17 (Id.) She did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or 18 medically equaled the requirements of a listed impairment. (AR 18.) She had a 19 residual functional capacity for light work with some postural limitations. (Id.) 20 She could perform her past relevant work as a dental assistant. (AR 22.) In the 21 alternative, she could perform other work in the national economy, in the 22 occupations of laundry sorter, bakery wrapper, and cafeteria attendant. (AR 23.) In 23 sum, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined by the Social 24 Security Act. (Id.) 25 On September 10, 2020, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for 26 review. (AR 1-6.) Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the 27 Commissioner. 28

2 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:7963

DISPUTED ISSUES

1 The parties raise three disputed issues: 2 1. Whether the ALJ failed to properly consider a closed period of 3 disability; 4 2. Whether the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s obesity; and 5 3. Whether the ALJ properly developed the record. 6 (ECF No. 30, Parties’ Joint Motion [“Joint Motion”] at 2.) 7

8

STANDARD OF REVIEW

9 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the Commissioner’s final 10 decision to determine whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by 11 substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards were applied. See 12 Treichler v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1098 (9th Cir. 13 2014). Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla” but less than a 14 preponderance. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Lingenfelter 15 v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “such 16 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 17 conclusion.” Richardson, 402 U.S. at 401. The Court must review the record as a 18 whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and the evidence that detracts from 19 the Commissioner’s conclusion. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1035. Where evidence is 20 susceptible of more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s 21 interpretation must be upheld. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 22 2007). 23

24

DISCUSSION

25 For the reasons discussed below, reversal and remand for further 26 administrative proceedings are warranted for Issue One, based on the absence of 27 discussion in the administrative decision relating to medical evidence covering an 28

3 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:7964

approximate two-year period preceding Plaintiff’s right sacroiliac joint fusion. 1 Having found that remand is warranted, the Court declines to address Plaintiff’s 2 remaining arguments. See Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) 3 (“Because we remand the case to the ALJ for the reasons stated, we decline to reach 4 [plaintiff’s] alternative ground for remand.”); see also Augustine ex rel. Ramirez v. 5 Astrue, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1153 n.7 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“[The] Court need not 6 address the other claims plaintiff raises, none of which would provide plaintiff with 7 any further relief than granted, and all of which can be addressed on remand.”). 8

9 A. Consideration of Medical Evidence (Issue One). 10 1. Legal Standard. 11 Ninth Circuit cases do not require “ALJs to draft dissertations when denying 12 benefits.” Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Treichler, 13 775 F.3d at 1103 (“[T]he ALJ’s analysis need not be extensive.”)). An ALJ is “not 14 required to discuss every piece of evidence.” Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 15 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 Nonetheless, an ALJ “must explain why significant probative evidence has 17 been rejected.” Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (per 18 curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The ALJ must set out in 19 the record his reasoning and the evidentiary support for his interpretation of the 20 medical evidence.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing 21 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 832 (9th Cir. 1995)). “[T]he treatment records must 22 be viewed in light of the overall diagnostic record.” Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 23 1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ must consider the medical evidence for all 24 relevant periods of alleged disability. See Robbins v. Social Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 25 880, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial evidence did not support an ALJ’s residual 26 functional capacity determination where he failed to explain his dismissal of 27 evidence of limitations covering a five-year period). 28

4 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:7965

2. Analysis. 1 Plaintiff claims that the ALJ did not give proper consideration to medical 2 evidence covering a period of approximately two years, from her application date of 3 December 19, 2017 until the date she had a right sacroiliac joint fusion on 4 September 18, 2019. (Joint Motion at 3.) Because the ALJ’s decision contains 5 little discussion of the evidence for this period, and because significant and 6 probative evidence originated during this period, Plaintiff’s argument is well taken. 7 The ALJ’s discussion of the medical evidence focused on the period after 8 Plaintiff’s right sacroiliac joint fusion on September 18, 2019. The decision noted 9 that Plaintiff had “no operative complications and made excellent progress” (AR 10 19), that Plaintiff remained “stable” during postoperative visits (AR 20), and that 11 Plaintiff’s “surgery was effective in alleviating her symptoms and improving her 12 functional abilities” (AR 21). 13 This discussion, however, did not account for conflicting clinical evidence 14 for the two-year period preceding the surgery. See Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 15 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (the ALJ must “set[] out a detailed and thorough summary 16 of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stat[e] his interpretation thereof, and 17 mak[e] findings”). For example, the decision did not mention a pre-surgery MRI 18 that showed degenerative disc disease with foraminal stenosis (AR 6186), which 19 was significant and probative evidence. See Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 20 562 (9th Cir. 2018) (ALJ erred in failing to discuss relevant, competent evidence 21 consisting of an MRI that showed abnormal findings). 22 Likewise, other pre-surgery evidence was not discussed. That evidence 23 consisted of treatment notes demonstrating, for example, that Plaintiff complained 24 of persistent pain despite taking eight Tramadol tablets per day (AR 5306, 5332, 25 5353, 5625, 5644, 6012); that she had decreased range of motion and spasms in her 26 back (AR 5380-81, 5836, 5974, 6071); that she was prescribed a cane (AR 5975) 27 and had an antalgic gait (AR 6012, 6071); and that she had an injection to her right 28

5 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:7966

sacroiliac joint (AR 6286), which she claimed gave her pain relief for only two days 1 (AR 6488). This evidence was significant and probative because it called into 2 question Plaintiff’s ability to perform the walking and standing requirements for 3 light work, as set out in the residual functional capacity determination. (AR 18.) 4 Light work “requires a good deal of walking or standing.” Social Security Ruling 5 83-10, 1983 WL 31251, at *5. Thus, this evidence should have been considered 6 and discussed. See Standen v. Saul, 774 F. App’x 395, 396 (9th Cir. 2019) (ALJ 7 erred in failing to discuss portions of the medical evidence relating to the claimant’s 8 surgery, which would have been inconsistent with the residual functional capacity 9 determination of light work). 10 In sum, the discussion of the medical evidence did not reflect consideration 11 of significant and probative evidence covering the period of approximately two 12 years preceding Plaintiff’s surgery. See Robbins, 466 F.3d at 884-85. Thus, 13 reversal is warranted. 14

15 B. Remand for Further Administrative Proceedings. 16 Ninth Circuit case law “precludes a district court from remanding a case for 17 an award of benefits unless certain prerequisites are met.” Dominguez v. Colvin, 18 808 F.3d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). “The district court must first 19 determine that the ALJ made a legal error, such as failing to provide legally 20 sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence.” Id. “If the court finds such an error, it 21 must next review the record as a whole and determine whether it is fully developed, 22 is free from conflicts and ambiguities, and all essential factual issues have been 23 resolved.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Here, significant and probative evidence for the relevant periods of alleged 25 disability was not discussed. It is appropriate in that circumstance to remand the 26 matter for further administrative proceedings. See Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 27 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (where an ALJ’s decision did not demonstrate consideration of 28

6 Case 2:20-cv-08773-MAA Document 32 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:7967

all relevant medical evidence, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the agency 1 for comment on that evidence). 2 Based on its review and consideration of the entire record, the Court has 3 concluded on balance that a remand for further administrative proceedings pursuant 4 to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is warranted here. It is not the Court’s intent 5 to limit the scope of the remand. 6 7

ORDER

8 It is ordered that Judgment be entered reversing the decision of the 9 Commissioner of Social Security and remanding this matter for further 10 administrative proceedings. 11 12 DATED: January_2_0_, 2022 13 14 15 MARIA A. AUDERO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7