Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHNATHAN FAY, Case No.: 3:24-cv-1774-WQH-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the review of Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg’s 19 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) recommending that the Commissioner of 20 Social Security’s decision be affirmed. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff Johnathan Fay (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint seeking 23 judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) decision to 24 deny his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. 25 (ECF No. 1.) 26 On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Brief in Support of Remand, seeking to vacate 27 the Commissioner’s decision and remand the case for further administrative proceedings. 28 1 (ECF No. 15.) On April 2, 2025, the Commissioner filed a Responsive Brief. (ECF No. 2 18.) On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 19.) 3 On January 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg issued a Report and 4 Recommendation for Order Affirming the Commissioner’s Decision (“Report and 5 Recommendation”). (ECF No. 21.) 6 On January 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. 7 (ECF No. 23.) 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 10 magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 11 § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 12 report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 13 part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 14 III. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Berg recommended that the Court issue 16 a judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s application for 17 benefits. (ECF No. 21 at 21.) 18 A. ALJ’s Supportability and Consistency Analysis Regarding Dr. Andelin’s Opinion 19 First, Judge Berg assessed whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who 20 denied Plaintiff’s application properly evaluated the medical opinion of Dr. Lane B. 21 Andelin using the “supportability” and “consistency” factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. 22 § 416.920c. Id. at 6–13. Judge Berg found that the ALJ “did not satisfy the ‘supportability’ 23 requirement of the relevant analysis.” Id. at 10. However, Judge Berg concluded that the 24 ALJ’s “consistency analysis was sound.” Id. at 11. Judge Berg held that the “ALJ’s error 25 in her supportability analysis does not warrant reversal” because the error was harmless. 26 Id. at 12. Judge Berg reasoned that: 27 [a]n ALJ’s decision will only be reversed if the error is not harmless. Smith v. 28 1 consistency factors are the most important considerations when evaluating the persuasiveness of medical opinions, even if the ALJ errs in evaluating one of 2 these factors, the error may be deemed harmless if substantial evidence 3 supports the ALJ’s decision. See generally id. Here, the ALJ’s error in her supportability analysis does not warrant reversal, because the error is not 4 significant enough to cast doubt on the ALJ’s disability determination. See 5 Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (“We may affirm the ALJ’s decision even if the ALJ made an error, so long as the error was harmless, 6 meaning it was ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability 7 determination.’”) (quoting Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038). Despite finding Dr. Andelin’s opinion to be “less persuasive” [AR 25], the ALJ nevertheless 8 accounted for the mild and moderate limitations identified by Dr. Andelin in 9 her RFC determination but rejected the marked limitation because it was inconsistent with the overall record. Thus . . . the ALJ’s error was harmless. 10 Id. at 11–12. 11 B. ALJ’s Mental RFC Determination 12 Second, Judge Berg assessed whether the ALJ’s residual functional capacity 13 (“RFC”) determination was erroneous because the ALJ “rejected the mental opinion [of 14 Dr. Andelin] and crafted an RFC based on her own interpretation of the evidence.” Id. 15 (quoting ECF No. 15 at 13.) Judge Berg found that, contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the 16 ALJ did not craft her mental RFC determination “out of thin air.” Id. at 16 (quoting ECF 17 No. 15 at 11.) Instead, the ALJ “reviewed and cited numerous records documenting 18 Plaintiff’s physical and mental health,” including “Plaintiff’s own hearing testimony, prior 19 administrative medical findings, [] all available state agency reports,” and “various 20 professionals’ evaluations of Plaintiff, including law enforcement investigators, doctors, 21 nurses, physician assistants, and therapists” to craft the mental portion of her RFC 22 determination. Id. (citations omitted). 23 Judge Berg stated that the relevant regulations “do not mandate the [ALJ’s] adoption 24 of any specific opinion, even if it is uncontradicted.” Id. at 17. Judge Berg concluded that 25 Dr. Andelin’s opinion “is contradicted” by “[m]ultiple evaluations by medical and 26 nonmedical sources,” especially on the issue of “Plaintiff’s social anxiety and capacity to 27 remember and understand instructions.” Id. at 18. Judge Berg noted that the ALJ cited 28 1 evidence from multiple sources to support her analysis of Dr. Andelin’s opinion, including 2 “other psychological and physical evaluations of Plaintiff, particularly those immediately 3 following Dr. Andelin’s evaluation in 2016.” Id. at 19. Judge Berg concluded that the 4 “ALJ’s RFC determination accounted for the [Dr. Andelin’s findings of] mild and 5 moderate limitations by restricting Plaintiff to jobs that require understanding and memory 6 of ‘simple work’ and workplaces in which only ‘occasional changes’ occur.” Id. at 17. 7 IV. DISCUSSION 8 A. ALJ’s Improper Supportability Analysis of Dr. Andelin’s Opinion Was Harmless Error 9 Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation’s finding that although “‘the 10 ALJ did not satisfy the supportability requirement of the relevant analysis,’ the error is 11 harmless.” (ECF No. 23 at 5 (quotation omitted).) Plaintiff contends that “[a]dopting the 12 Report and Recommendation would be at odds with the Ninth Circuit[’s] holdings which 13 recognize that substantial evidence is not a defense to an ALJ’s legal error.” Id. at 6. 14 Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ’s legal error was not harmless because “the improper 15 rejection of the opinion of Dr. Andelin yielded vocational testimony which fails to carry 16 the agency’s burden of proof at the final step in the sequential evaluation process.” Id. 17 An ALJ’s “decision to deny benefits will only be disturbed if it is not supported by 18 ‘substantial evidence or it is based on legal error.’” Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 679 19 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989)). A court 20 “may affirm the ALJ’s decision even if the ALJ made an error, so long as the error was 21 harmless, meaning it was ‘inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination.’” 22 Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 23 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)). 24 Here, Judge Berg concluded that the ALJ’s supportability analysis error was 25 harmless because her RFC determination properly incorporated Dr. Andelin’s opinion. 26 (ECF No. 21 at 12.) Specifically, Judge Berg found that the “ALJ’s RFC determination 27 sufficiently addressed Dr. Andelin’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mild limitations 28 1 [regarding social interactions] by limiting Plaintiff to unskilled work, including 2 occupations with little human interaction such as production assembler.” Id. (citation 3 omitted). Judge Berg likewise found that the ALJ’s RFC determination accounted for the 4 “moderate limitations in understanding and remembering complex instructions . . . and 5 responding appropriately to changes” described by Dr. Andelin because the ALJ limited 6 Plaintiff to “simple” work where “only occasional changes in the workplace occur.” Id. at 7 12–13. Lastly, Judge Berg stated that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Andelin’s finding 8 that Plaintiff had a “marked limitation in making judgments on complex work-related 9 decisions” because the ALJ limited Plaintiff to jobs that require him to “understand, 10 remember, and perform simple work”—not complex work. Id. at 13. 11 The Court agrees with Judge Berg’s finding that “the ALJ’s error in her 12 supportability analysis does not warrant reversal[] because the error is not significant 13 enough to cast doubt on the ALJ’s disability determination.” (ECF No. 21 at 12.) Even 14 though the ALJ disagreed with Dr. Andelin’s opinion, she still incorporated his findings 15 into her RFC determination, as discussed above. The ALJ’s error in analyzing the 16 supportability of Dr. Andelin’s opinion was harmless because it “was nonprejudicial to the 17 claimant or irrelevant to the ALJ’s ultimate disability conclusion.” Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. 18 Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see also Turner v. 19 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that ALJ appropriately 20 incorporated doctor’s observation of plaintiff’s post-traumatic stress disorder into his RFC 21 determination by limiting plaintiff to simple, routine work “without significant background 22 activity”). The Court overrules Plaintiff’s first objection to the Report and 23 Recommendation. 24 B. ALJ’s Mental RFC Determination Was Proper 25 Plaintiff objects to Judge Berg’s conclusion that “whether or not Dr. Andelin’s 26 opinion was the only remaining mental opinion of record is immaterial because an ALJ is 27 not required to adopt a medical opinion, even if it is the only mental opinion of record.” 28 (ECF No. 23 at 7.) Plaintiff contends that because the state agency psychological 1 consultants failed to provide a medical opinion and the ALJ found Dr. Andelin’s opinion 2 || “less persuasive,” the “record contains no medical opinion assessing what Plaintiff can still 3 ||do mentally.” /d. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ thus had a “duty to obtain an assessment 4 ||from a medical source with access to this evidence, rather than . . . play doctor and craft 5 ||the RFC from her own attempt to interpret the raw medical data.” /d. Plaintiff contends 6 || that although the ALJ relied on medical “evidence,” she did not properly rely on a medical 7 ||“opinion.” Jd. at 7-8. 8 As discussed above, although the ALJ deemed Dr. Andelin’s opinion “less 9 || persuasive,” her RFC determination still reflected the limitations found by Dr. Andelin. In 10 || discrediting Dr. Andelin’s opinion, the ALJ cited contradictory evidence regarding 11 || Plaintiff's alleged mental limitations from a multitude of sources. (See ECF No. 21 at 16- 12 Accordingly, Judge Berg concluded that the ALJ “had no duty to develop the record 13 || further because the evidence unambiguously supports the RFC determination.” /d. at 18. 14 ||The Court agrees and overrules Plaintiff's second objection to the Report and 15 || Recommendation. 16 Vv. CONCLUSION 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is 18 || adopted in full. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding 20 || Plaintiff not disabled and denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and 21 Supplemental Security Income is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 22 favor of the Commissioner and against Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court shall close this 23 || case. 24 25 Dated: March 26, 2026 Nitta Ze. Ma 26 Hon, William Q. Hayes 7 United States District Court 28