PATRICK J. WALSH, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff appeals a decision by Defendant Social Security Administration ("the Agency"), denying his application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. He claims that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred when he rejected the opinion of Plaintiff's treating doctor and when he found that Plaintiff was not credible. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the ALJ erred and remands the case to the Agency for further proceedings.
In June 2007, Plaintiff applied for SSI, alleging that he had been unable to work since September 2003, due to pain in his back and other parts of his body. (Administrative Record ("AR") 206-12, 223.) His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. He then requested and was granted a hearing before an AU. On April 27, 2009, he appeared with counsel and testified at the hearing. (AR 46-77.) On May 11, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision, denying the application. (AR 82-93.) Plaintiff appealed to the Appeals Council, which reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded for a new hearing. (AR 139-40, 166-69.)
On September 12, 2011, a different ALJ held a hearing, during which Plaintiff appeared and testified. (AR 33-45.) On February 17, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application. (AR 16-27.) This appeal followed.
In his first claim of error, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred when he rejected the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician, who had determined, essentially, that Plaintiff's physical impairments prevented him from working, and relied, instead, on the opinions of the examining and reviewing physicians. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the ALJ erred.
In July 2007, Dr. Bunsri T. Sophon examined Plaintiff in connection with his application for SSI and determined that he was capable of lifting 100 pounds occasionally and 50 pounds frequently and did not have any limitations or restrictions preventing him from working. (AR 269-73.)
In October 2007, Esther N. Villegas reviewed Dr. Sophon's report and the other medical records in the file at that time and concurred with Dr. Sophon that Plaintiff was not limited or restricted in any way and could lift up to 50 pounds frequently and 100 pounds occasionally. (AR 275-81.)
Beginning in April 2008, Dr. Giovinetza Hasbun and other doctors at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center began treating Plaintiff for back pain and other ailments. (AR 310-483.) In February 2009, Hasbun opined that, due to the pain and limitation caused by his ailments, Plaintiff, essentially, could not work, i.e., he could lift only ten pounds, stand for only 45 minutes, sit for only one hour, needed unscheduled breaks every hour, and would miss work four times a month. (AR 306-09.)
The ALJ discounted Dr. Hasbun's opinion, finding that "the record lacks evidentiary support for the level of limitation this physician assessed." (AR 25.) The ALJ relied, instead, on the opinions of Dr. Sophon and "Dr. Esther Villegas." (AR 24.) As the Agency now concedes, however, Ms. Villegas is not a doctor. She is an analyst. Thus, the AL's reliance on Ms. Villegas' opinion was in error. Further, the Court does not find the error harmless because it is clear that Ms. Esther's views played an important role in the AL's determination that Plaintiff could work. See, e.g., Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting error is harmless if it is "inconsequential to the ultimate non-disability determination.").
The Court also finds that the ALJ erred in not stating specifically why he was rejecting Dr. Hasbun's opinion. The AL's summary conclusion that "the record lacks evidentiary support" for the opinion is not enough. See Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting AL's decision to discount treating physician's opinion on ground that it was "contrary to the preponderant conclusions mandated by those objective findings") . On remand, the ALJ should identify those parts of the record that he is referring to so that the parties and the Court will know what his finding is based on and can analyze it accordingly.
Finally, though not an issue specifically raised by the parties, I the Court notes that the ALJ's February 2012 decision that Plaintiff was not disabled relied mostly on Dr. Sophon's and Esther Villegas' 2007 reports. From a review of the record, it appears that a lot happened between 2007 and 2012. In fact, almost all of the medical records were created after 2007. (AR 289-483.) It is unclear why Plaintiff was not examined again or why a medical expert was not consulted to address these new medical records. On remand, the AU should consider whether either procedure (or another) is warranted to address these new records as well as any changes in Plaintiff's condition.
Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred when he found that Plaintiff was not credible. Here, again, the Court agrees.
The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's allegations of disabling pain were not credible because, "Neither the severity nor the extent of the alleged limitations is supported by the medical evidence of record." (AR 24.) This explanation is not specific enough for the Court and the parties to determine the basis for the AL's finding and, therefore, it is reversed. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1283-17 84 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining ALJ must provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to reject claimant's testimony). On remand, the ALJ should identify those parts of the record that he is referring to so that the parties will understand the basis of the ruling and so that the Court can conduct meaningful review should the issue be raised on appeal.
For these reasons, the Agency's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.
