# Lynn Crosby v. Kilolo Kijakazi

> District Court, C.D. California · July 18, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9980627

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** July 18, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9980627

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a treating 22 physician’s “statements must be read in context of the overall diagnostic picture he 23 draws”
- holding that the ALJ has an affirmative duty to assist 9 the claimant in developing the record “when there is ambiguous evidence or when 10 the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence”

## Opinion text

Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:2118

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LYNN C.,1
11 Case No. 8:20-cv-01844-GJS
Plaintiff
12
v.
13 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
KILOLO KIJAKAJI, Acting ORDER
14 Commissioner of Social Security,
15 Defendant.

16

17 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18 Plaintiff Lynn C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking review of the decision
19 of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her applications for Disability
20 Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The parties
21 filed consents to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
22 [Dkts. 12 and 14] and briefs [Dkt. 22 (“Pl. Br.”) and Dkt. 28 (“Def. Br.”)]
23 addressing disputed issues in the case. Plaintiff did not file a reply. The matter is
24 now ready for decision. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that this
25

26

27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only Plaintiff’s first name and initial
of her last name.
28
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2119

1 matter should be remanded for further proceedings.
2
3 II. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
4 In August 2016, Plaintiff filed applications for DIB and SSI alleging
5 disability beginning June 30, 2009.2 [Dkt. 19, Administrative Record (“AR”) 480,
6 848-63.] Plaintiff’s applications were denied at the initial level of review and on
7 reconsideration. [AR 480, 746-50, 754-58, 761-65.] A hearing was held before
8 Administrative Law Judge Susanne M. Cichanowicz (“the ALJ”) on December 18,
9 2018. [AR 480, 622-51.]
10 On March 18, 2019, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision applying the
11 five-step sequential evaluation process for assessing disability. [AR 480-91]; see 20
12 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b)-(g)(1), 416.920(b)-(g)(1). At step one, the ALJ determined
13 that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity (“SGA”) since the
14 alleged onset date. [AR 483.] At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the
15 following severe impairments: hypertension, thyroid disorder, and chronic
16 obstructive pulmonary disease. [AR 483.] At step three, the ALJ determined that
17 Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or
18 medically equals the severity of one of the impairments listed in Appendix I of the
19 Regulations. [AR 487]; see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. The ALJ found
20 that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform medium work,
21
22
23
2 Plaintiff filed earlier applications for DIB and SSI in 2012, alleging disability
24 since June 30, 2009. [AR 480, 656.] The previous applications were denied by an
ALJ on April 10, 2014. [AR 480-81, 656-64.] There is no indication in the record
25
that Plaintiff appealed the unfavorable decision. Because this case involved a prior
26 ALJ decision finding Plaintiff not disabled, the ALJ applied Acquiescence Ruling
97-4(9), 1997 WL 742758 at *3. See Chavez v. Bowen, 844 F.2d 691, 692 (9th Cir.
27 1988). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff rebutted the presumption of continuing
non-disability by submitting evidence that Plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic
28
obstructive pulmonary disease. [AR 481.]
2
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:2120

1 as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(c), 416.967(c), and is able to lift/carry and
2 push/pull 50 pounds occasionally and 25 pounds frequently, stand/walk 6 hours in
3 an 8-hour workday, sit 6 hours in an 8-hour workday, frequently climb ramps/stairs,
4 ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, frequently balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl,
5 and occasionally have exposure to pulmonary irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts,
6 and gases. [AR 487.] At step four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff is capable of
7 performing past relevant work as a licensed vocational nurse. [AR 491.] Based on
8 these findings, the ALJ found Plaintiff not disabled from June 30, 2009, through the
9 date of the decision. [AR 491.]
10 The Appeals Council denied review of the ALJ’s decision on July 31, 2020.
11 [AR 1-7.] This action followed.
12 Plaintiff raises the following issues challenging the ALJ’s findings and
13 determination of non-disability:
14 1. The ALJ failed to properly consider the impact of Plaintiff’s
15 medically determinable impairments of anxiety and depression on
16 the ability to perform her past work as a licensed vocational nurse.
17 [Pl. Br. at 4-8.]
18 2. The ALJ failed to properly consider the opinions of the examining
19 and reviewing physicians in determining Plaintiff does not suffer
20 from a severe mental impairment. [Pl. Br. at 9-17.]
21 The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed. [Def.
22 Br. at 1-10.]
23
24 III. GOVERNING STANDARD
25 Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reviews the Commissioner’s decision to
26 determine if: (1) the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial
27 evidence; and (2) the Commissioner used correct legal standards. See Carmickle v.
28 Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008); Brewes v. Comm’r
3
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:2121

1 Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence is
2 more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence
3 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gutierrez
4 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 740 F.3d 519, 522-23 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
5 marks and citation omitted).
6 The Court will uphold the Commissioner’s decision when “the evidence is
7 susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881
8 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the Court may review only the reasons
9 stated by the ALJ in his decision “and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon
10 which he did not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 2007). The
11 Court will not reverse the Commissioner’s decision if it is based on harmless error,
12 which exists if the error is “inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability
13 determination.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 2015)
14 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
15
IV. DISCUSSION
16
A. The ALJ Erred in Evaluating the Medical Opinion Evidence
17
Plaintiff contends the ALJ improperly rejecting the opinion of her examining
18
psychiatrist, Dr. Ernest A. Bagner III, and in turn, erred at step two by finding that
19
she has no severe mental impairment. [Pl. Br. 9-17.] The Court agrees with
20
Plaintiff for the reasons discussed below.
21
The weight given to medical opinions depends in part on whether they are
22
proffered by treating, examining, or non-examining professionals. See Holohan v.
23
Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821,
24
830 (9th Cir. 1996).3 In general, opinions of treating sources are entitled to the
25
26
27
3 The regulations governing the evaluation of medical evidence were amended
28
for claims filed after March 27, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The
4
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:2122

1 greatest weight, opinions of examining, non-treating sources are entitled to lesser
2 weight, and opinions of non-examining, non-treating sources are entitled to the least
3 weight. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014).
4 If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s
5 opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing “specific and legitimate reasons that
6 are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. An
7 ALJ can satisfy this standard by “setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the
8 facts and conflicting evidence, stating his [or her] interpretation thereof, and making
9 findings.” Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751 (internal quotation marks and citation
10 omitted).
11 In January 2017, after performing a complete psychiatric evaluation of
12 Plaintiff, Dr. Bagner diagnosed Plaintiff with major depressive disorder with anxiety
13 and assessed “moderate” limitations in the ability to follow detailed instructions,
14 interact appropriately with the public, co-workers, and supervisors, and respond to
15 work pressure in a usual work setting. [AR 484-85, 1108-12.]
16 The ALJ’s stated reasons for rejecting Dr. Bagner’s opinion are not supported
17 by substantial evidence. First, the ALJ asserted that Dr. Bagner’s opinion was
18 entitled to “little weight” because Plaintiff’s “consultative examination was
19 generally unremarkable except for poor eye contact and problems with memory in
20 recalling objects after 5 minutes” and “[t]here were no other significant
21 psychological symptoms.” [AR 485.] However, Dr. Bagner reported other
22 significant symptoms that were not mentioned by the ALJ. Plaintiff’s mental status
23 exam showed she was tearful and tense, her speech was slow and emotional, and her
24

25

26 new regulations change how the Social Security Administration considers medical
opinions and eliminate the deference to treating source medical opinions. See 20
27 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a); see also 81 Fed. Reg. 62560, at 62573-74 (Sept. 9, 2016).
Petitioner’s applications for DIB and SSI were filed before the new regulations went
28
into effect. [AR 848-63.]
5
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:2123

1 mood was depressed. [AR 1110.] In addition, Plaintiff was able to repeat only 3
2 digits forward and 3 digits backward on the digit span subtest and she was unable to
3 spell the word “music” forward and backward. [AR 1111.] It was improper for the
4 ALJ to selectively rely on some entries in Dr. Bagner’s report that were consistent
5 with her conclusion while ignoring other entries that supported a different
6 conclusion. See Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1207 (9th Cir. 2001)
7 (finding that “the ALJ’s specific reason for rejecting [a physician’s] medical opinion
8 [was] not supported by substantial evidence” because, in part, “the ALJ selectively
9 relied on some entries in [the plaintiff’s] records ... and ignored the many others that
10 indicated continued, severe impairment”); Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1456
11 (9th Cir.1984) (the ALJ must not “reach a conclusion first, and then attempt to
12 justify it by ignoring competent evidence in the record that suggests an opposite
13 result”).
14 Second, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not received regular and consistent
15 mental health treatment with psychotropic medication and psychotherapy
16 counseling. [AR 485.] This finding is inaccurate. Although Plaintiff may not have
17 been seeing a specialist at the time of Dr. Bagner’s examination, there is ample
18 objective evidence that Plaintiff received mental health treatment, which included
19 strong psychotropic medication. In September 2015, Plaintiff was diagnosed with
20 anxiety and depression was prescribed Valium by her treating physician, Dr.
21 Michael Gross. [AR 1051, 1053, 1057, 1060, 1063.] In July 2016, Dr. Gross
22 assessed Plaintiff with major depressive disorder, single episode and began treating
23 Plaintiff’s symptoms with Xanax. [AR 1038, 1046, 1109, 1896, 1905.] In May
24 2017, Plaintiff started receiving mental health treatment at Behavioral Health, where
25 she was diagnosed with recurrent major depressive episodes, moderate and
26 generalized anxiety disorder and was prescribed Wellbutrin and Xanax. [AR 1896,
27 1899, 1929, 1933, 1936, 1940, 1947, 1954, 1963, 1968, 1972, 1977, 1987, 1995,
28 1997, 2000.] Later, Zoloft was added to Plaintiff’s medication regimen. [AR 1909,
6
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:2124

1 1912, 1976, 1980.] The ALJ erred in ignoring this significant evidence of mental
2 health treatment. See Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1207; Gallant, 753 F.2d at 1456. In
3 addition, Plaintiff’s treatment notes reflect that she had received psychotherapy, but
4 her therapist became unavailable and she missed psychotherapy for a few months
5 before finding a new therapist. [AR 1905, 1912.] While the ALJ asserted it was
6 “unclear” how often Plaintiff received psychotherapy, the ALJ failed in her duty to
7 adequately develop the record in this regard. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d
8 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that the ALJ has an affirmative duty to assist
9 the claimant in developing the record “when there is ambiguous evidence or when
10 the record is inadequate to allow for proper evaluation of the evidence”). “In cases
11 of mental impairments, this duty is especially important.” DeLorme v. Sullivan, 924
12 F.2d 841, 849 (9th Cir. 1991).
13 Third, the ALJ asserted that Plaintiff’s treatment records show that her
14 “psychological symptoms improved with medication and that she feels better with
15 treatment.” [AR 485.] However, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned against relying too
16 heavily on the “wax and wane” of symptoms in the course of mental health
17 treatment. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017. “Cycles of improvement and
18 debilitating symptoms are a common occurrence, and in such circumstances it is
19 error for an ALJ to pick out a few isolated instances of improvement over a period
20 of months or years and to treat them as a basis for concluding a claimant is capable
21 of working.” Id.; see also Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1205 (explaining that a treating
22 physician’s “statements must be read in context of the overall diagnostic picture he
23 draws”). Indeed, while the ALJ cited three records showing moderate to good
24 improvement with medication [AR 1899, 1902, 1905, 485], subsequent records
25 reflect increased levels of depression and anxiety [AR 1976-78, 1980, 1986-88,
26 1909, 1912, 1997].
27 Finally, the ALJ found that Dr. Bagner’s assessment of Plaintiff’s Global
28 Assessment of Functioning (“GAF”) score of 60 was of “limited evidentiary value,”
7
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:2125

1 as it “reveal[s] only snapshots of impaired and improved behavior, state[s] nothing
2 in terms of function-by-function capacity or limitations, and do[es] not provide a
3 reliable longitudinal picture of [Plaintiff’s] mental functioning.”4 [AR 485.] Again,
4 however, the ALJ failed to adequately consider Dr. Bagner’s examination report,
5 which indicated significant mental impairments. [AR 1110-11.]
6 As such, the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Bagner’s opinion and determination
7 that Plaintiff does not have a severe mental impairment is not supported by
8 substantial evidence.
9
10 V. REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
11 The Court has discretion to remand or reverse and award benefits. See
12 Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 682 (9th Cir. 2017). “Remand for further
13 proceedings is appropriate where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved
14 before a determination can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ
15 would be required to find the claimant disabled if all the evidence were properly
16 evaluated.” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012); Treichler v.
17 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (remand for
18 award of benefits is inappropriate where “there is conflicting evidence, and not all
19 essential factual issues have been resolved”). But “[w]here ‘(1) the record has been
20 fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful
21
22
23
4 The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff’s treating physician assessed Plaintiff with a
24 GAF score of 50. [AR 485, 1986.] A GAF score between 41 and 50 indicates
serious symptoms (e.g ., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent
25
shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning
26 (e.g., no friends, inability to keep a job). See American Psychiatric Association,
Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM-IV”), at 34 (4th ed.
27 2000). A GAF score between 51 and 60 indicates moderate symptoms or moderate
difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts
28
with peers or coworkers). Id.
8
Case 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:2126

1 purpose; (2) the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting
2 evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; and (3) if the improperly
3 discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the
4 claimant disabled on remand,’” it is appropriate to exercise this discretion to direct
5 an immediate award of benefits. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 682-83 (quoting Garrison,
6 759 F.3d at 1020).
7 Here, remand is required because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Dr.
8 Bagner’s opinion and there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a
9 final determination can be made. On remand, the ALJ should reconsider Dr.
10 Bagner’s opinion, explain the weight afforded to that opinion, and provide legally
11 sufficient reasons for rejecting any portion of that opinion.
12 Having found that remand is warranted, the Court declines to address
13 Plaintiff’s remaining issues. See Hiler v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir.
14 2012) (“Because we remand the case to the ALJ for the reasons stated, we decline to
15 reach [plaintiff’s] alternative ground for remand.”).5
16 / / /
17
18
19
5 As noted above, Plaintiff filed earlier applications for DIB and SSI in 2012,
20 alleging disability since June 30, 2009, and those applications were denied by an
ALJ on April 10, 2014. [AR 480-81, 656-64.] Although the ALJ did not discuss
21
medical evidence relating to the previously adjudicated period of non-disability,
22 June 30, 2009 to April 10, 2014, the ALJ addressed the issue of Plaintiff’s disability
during that period by concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled from June 30, 2009
23 through the date of the decision, March 18, 2019. [AR 480-91.] As this case is
being remanded for further proceedings, the ALJ on remand should determine the
24 relevant time period to be adjudicated and whether reopening of Plaintiff’s prior
disability determination would be appropriate under the regulations and applicable
25
authorities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.988, 416.1488; see also Lewis v. Apfel, 236 F.3d
26 503, 510 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding “it is appropriate for the Court to treat the ALJ’s
actions as a de facto reopening” when the ALJ is aware of the denial of a claimant’s
27 prior application for DIB or SSI benefits, accepts the alleged onset date during the
previously-adjudicated period, and considers evidence of disability from the
28
already-adjudicated period).
9
Cas@ 8:20-cv-01844-GJS Document 29 Filed 07/18/22 Page 10o0f10 Page ID #:2127

1 VI. CONCLUSION
2 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:
3 (1) the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this matter is
4 REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
5 administrative proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and
6 Order; and
7 (2) Judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff.
9 IT IS ORDERED.
10
11 |} DATED: July 18, 2022
12
13
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9980627. Public record. Not legal advice.