Opinion
Case No. 08-5635RJB.
July 16, 2009
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura (Dkt. 13). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff's Response to Objections, and the remainder of the file herein.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court remand this matter to the administration for further consideration because the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") findings are not properly supported by substantial evidence. Dkt. 13 at 3. The ALJ found that Dr. Cove's and Dr. Siler's (hereafter "treating physicians") opinions were not supported by objective medical findings, that the treating physicians offered little explanation for their opinions, that they relied on subjective reports by claimant, and that their opinions were not consistent with other medical opinions of record. The Magistrate Judge concludes that "[a] review of the medical evidence does not support the ALJ's reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Cove." Dkt. 13 at 6.
The Commissioner objects to the Report and Recommendation, stating that the ALJ provided multiple and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Cove's opinion regarding the extent of Plaintiff's limitations. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. The Commissioner argues that the treatment provided by Dr. Cove is not objective evidence of a limitation to sedentary work. The Commissioner also states that Dr. Cove's assessment of limitation was rejected by the ALJ because Dr. Cove provided little explanation for Plaintiff's limitations. Dkt. 14 at 3. Finally, the Commissioner states that the ALJ rejected Dr. Cove's limitation assessment because "he appeared to base his opinion on Plaintiff's subjective reports of symptoms and limitations." Dkt. 14 at 4.
Plaintiff responds to the Commissioner's objections by stating that the ALJ's assertion that Dr. Cove's opinions are not supported by objective findings is itself not supported by substantial evidence, that Dr. Cove's chart notes contain extensive objective findings which explain his assessment of limitation to sedentary work, and that there is no evidence in the record to justify the ALJ's conclusion that Dr. Cove relied exclusively upon Plaintiff's subjective complaints in forming their opinions. Dkt. 15.
II. DISCUSSION
The ALJ's decision denying the disability insurance benefits will be disturbed only if that decision is not supported by substantial evidence or it is based upon legal error. Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d 599, 600 (9th Cir. 1998). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 4022 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971); Tidwell v. Apfel, 161 F.3d at 600.
The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and resolving any other ambiguities that might exist. Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995). Where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, it is the ALJ's decision that must be upheld. Id.
As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Where the treating doctor's opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for "clear and convincing" reasons. Id. Additionally, "clear and convincing" reasons are required to reject the treating doctor's ultimate conclusions. Id. Even if the treating doctor's opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the Commissioner may not reject this opinion without providing "specific and legitimate reasons" supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. However, the ALJ need not accept a treating physician's opinion which is brief and conclusory in form with little in the way of clinical findings to support its conclusion. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989).
In this case, the reasons given by the ALJ for rejecting the treating physicians' opinions are not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ stated that there is no objective evidence of a limitation to sedentary work. However, upon review of the record, the Court is persuaded that the treatment record, the MRI study, and the EMG are sources of objective evidence. The ALJ also stated that the treating physicians' assessments of limitation were rejected because they provided little explanation for Plaintiff's limitations. Again, upon review of the record, the ALJ's conclusion is not supported by the record. The treating physicians' notes are extensive and support their conclusions. The ALJ next stated that the treating physicians' limitation assessment was rejected because "it appears that they may have relied . . . on the claimant's subjective report of symptoms and limitations." The ALJ, however, did not support this conclusion with any evidence in the record. Since the ALJ's reasons are not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ should not have discounted the treating physicians' opinions even though they may have not been consistent with the non-treating physicians' opinions. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
III. ORDER
The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:
(1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13);
(2) The matter is REMANDED to the administration for further consideration; and
(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record.