United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
SAGAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that this matter is remanded for further
administrative action consistent with this Opinion.
29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of the
denial of her application for Supplemental Security Incom.
(Docket Entry No. 1). The parties have consented to proceed
before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge.
(Docket Entry Nos. 17, 20). On January 3, 2017, Defendant
filed an Answer along with the Administrative Record
(“AR”). (Docket Entry Nos. 17, 20). The parties
filed a Joint Stipulation (“Joint Stip.”) on May
2, 2017, setting forth their respective positions regarding
Plaintiff's claims. (Docket Entry No. 26).
Court has taken this matter under submission without oral
argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15; “Order Re:
Procedures In Social Security Appeal, ” filed August
19, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 15).
AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
October 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for
Supplemental Security Income, alleging a disability since
July 27, 2012. (See AR 130-38). On September 9,
2014, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), John
Kays, heard testimony from Plaintiff and vocational expert
Ronald Hatakeyama. (See AR 32-46). On October 24,
2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's
application. (See AR 20-27). After determining that
Plaintiff had a severe impairment -- bursitis of the
bilateral hips status post intramedullary rodding of
bilateral femur fractures (AR 22) -- but did not have an
impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the severity of one of the Listed
Impairments (AR 22), the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the
residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform light work with the
following limitations: standing or walking for no more than 4
hours out of an 8-hour workday; sitting for no more than 6
hours out of an 8-hour workday; no jobs requiring work around
unprotected heights or on ladders, ropes and scaffolds; and
limited to jobs requiring only the performance of simple,
routine, repetitive tasks. (AR 22-25). The ALJ then
determined that Plaintiff did not have any past relevant work
(AR 25), but that jobs existed in significant numbers in the
national economy that Plaintiff can perform, and therefore
found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act. (AR 25-27).
requested that the Appeals Council review the ALJ's
decision. (AR 14-16, 220-21). The request was denied on June
9, 2016. (AR 1-5). The ALJ's decision then became the
final decision of the Commissioner, allowing this Court to
review the decision. See 42 U.S.C. §§
alleges that the ALJ erred in failing to: (1) evaluate the
opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Huang; and
(2) properly reject Plaintiff's testimony regarding his
limitations. (See Joint Stip. at 3-5, 15-20, 29-30).
consideration of the record as a whole, the Court finds that
Plaintiff's second claim of error warrants a remand for
further consideration. Since the Court is remanding the
matter based on Plaintiff's second claim of error, the
Court will not address Plaintiff's first claim of error.
The ALJ Did Not Properly Assess Plaintiff's
asserts that the ALJ failed to properly find that
Plaintiff's testimony about his pain symptoms and
functional limitations was not fully credible. (See
Joint Stip. at 16-20, 29-30). Defendant asserts that the ALJ
properly evaluated Plaintiff's subjective ...