United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
social security action was submitted to the court without
oral argument for ruling on plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and defendant's cross-motion for summary
judgment.Plaintiff's motion argues that the
Administrative Law Judge's treatment of the medical
opinion evidence constituted error. For the reasons explained
below, plaintiff's motion is granted, the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further
decision dated July 1, 1994, plaintiff was found to be
disabled as of July 1, 1994, and thus entitled to
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title
XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”).
(Transcript (“Tr.”) at 17.) However, in September
of 2013, it was determined that plaintiff was no longer
disabled as of September 1, 2013. (Id. at 17, 68,
73-76.) This determination was upheld upon reconsideration.
(Id. at 109-11.)
plaintiff requested a hearing, which was initially held on
November 18, 2014, with a subsequent hearing on February 24,
2015. (Id. at 32-45, 46-67.) Plaintiff testified at
both administrative hearings, but was represented by counsel
at only the February 24, 2015 hearing. (Id. at
32-35, 46-47.) In a decision issued on July 15, 2015, the ALJ
found that plaintiff's disability ended as of September
1, 2013. (Id. at 27.) The ALJ entered the following
1. The most recent favorable medical decision finding that
the claimant continued to be disabled is the determination
dated October 15, 2007. This is known as the
“comparison point decision” or CPD.
2. At the time of the CPD, the claimant had the following
medically determinable impairments: Bipolar disorder, ADHD,
and emotional disturbance. His bipolar disorder was found to
meet section(s) 12.04 (Affective (mood) Disorders) of 20 CFR
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920(d)).
3. The medical evidence establishes that the claimant did not
develop any additional impairments after the CPD through
September 1, 2013. Thus, the claimant's current
impairments are the same as the CPD impairments.
4. Since January 1, 2013, the claimant has not had an
impairment or combination of impairments which meets or
medically equals the severity of an impairment listed in 20
CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1525 and
5. Medical improvement occurred as of September 1, 2013 (20
6. The medical improvement is related to the ability to work
because, as of September 1, 2013, the claimant no longer had
an impairment or combination of impairments that met or
medically equaled the same listing(s) that was met at the
time of the CPD (20 CFR 416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A)).
7. Beginning on September 1, 2013, the claimant's
impairments has (sic) continued to be severe (20 CFR
6 (sic). After careful consideration of the entire record, I
find that, beginning on September 1, 2013, the claimant has
had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range
of work at all exertional levels but with the following
nonexertional limitations: he can perform limited 1 to 2-step
tasks with only occasional contact with the public,
co-workers, and supervisors.
7 (sic). The claimant has no past relevant work (20 CFR
8. On September 1, 2013, the claimant was a younger
individual age 18-49 ...