Nichols v. Berryhill ( 2020 )

1 SE RO] FILED. 3 JAN 1 §-2020 4 CLERK US DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY □□□□□□ 5 6 . . 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 . . 11 || NICHOLE NICHOLS, Case No.: 3:19-cv-0490-BEN-LL . Plaintiff, 12 | ORDER: 13 || V- (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 14 || ANDREW SAUL, RECOMMENDATION; 15 Defendant.| (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 17 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 1g CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 19 20 [Docket Nos. 11, 12, 21] 2] Plaintiff Nichole Nichols filed this action for judicial review of the Social Security 22 || Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed a 23 || motion for summary judgment, and Defendant filed. cross-motion for summary judgment. 24 On November 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez issued a thoughtful and 25 |jthorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant □□□□□□□□□□□ 26 ||motion for summary judgment, deny Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, 27 reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further administrative 28 || proceedings. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment contends that the Administrative 1 || Law Judge (“ALJ”) committed reversible error by (1) failing to give any weight to the 2 ||opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Elizabeth Pendragon, and (2) failing to articulate 3 {| specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of her examining psychologist, Dr. 4 ||Kara Cross, Magistrate Judge Lopez agreed. 5 Specifically, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ’s opinion does not point to 6 ||substantial evidence or adequately explain why Dr. Pendragon’s opinion deserved “no 7 weight” whatsoever. For example, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ’s opinion fails 8 || to adequately explain how Plaintiffs daily activities conflict with Dr. Pendragon’s opinion, 9 whether the ALJ properly accounted for the entirety of Plaintiff? s statements in her function 10 report, and whether the ALJ properly considered the transferability of Plaintiffs daily 11 |lactivities to a workplace environment. Magistrate Judge Lopez additionally found that, in 12 discrediting Dr. Pendragon’s opinion, the ALJ did not identify the specific medical 13 || evidence found inconsistent with Dr. Pendragon’s opinions or explain how such evidence 14 || was inconsistent. See, e.g., McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989) (ALJ. 15 in giving “broad and vague” reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion and 16 || “failing to specify why the ALJ felt the treating physician’s opinion was flawed.”). 17 Because the opinion of a treating physician is arguably the most important, the omission is 18 ||not harmless. In addition, Magistrate Judge Lopez found the ALJ erred by accepting Dr. 19 Grubbs’s opinion and rejecting Dr. Cross’s opinion without explanation. This also 20 || necessitates reversal. 21 Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by December 13, 2019 with 22 j\replies due by January 3, 2020. Neither party has filed any objections. Accordingly, for 23 || the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. _ 24 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 25 magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 26 |/636(b){(1). “[T]Jhe district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 27 ||recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, 28 statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s □ 1 || findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United 2 || States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also Wang v. 3 || Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor the statute 4 || requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties 5 ||themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 6 The Court need not conduct de novo review given the absence of objections. 7 Nevertheless, the Court has considered the parties’ arguments and fully ADOPTS the 8 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 9 ||Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Accordingly, the 10 || Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further 11 administrative proceedings. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 13 sf 2 14 Date: Janvary/4,2020 Lo 15 GER T. BENIPEZ Unitéd States District Judge 16 17 □□ 18 19 20 21 : 22 . 23 a4 25 □ □ 27 28 ,