Barreto v. Berryhill

District Court, S.D. California · 3:18-cv-00755 · 2019-08-26 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Roger T. Benitez (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:10Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a Report and Recommendation in a Social Security disability case where the ALJ failed to address the claimant's color-vision limitation. The court adopted the R&R, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendant's cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

What the court decided	Standard it applied	The model
Adoption of the Report and Recommendation “The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 24).”	de novo	agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a district judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R to which a party objects. Because neither party filed objections, the court was not required to conduct a de novo review but chose to do so (or at least review the R&R for clear error) and found it correct. The court's statement that it 'considered and agrees' with the R&R is consistent with the procedural requirements when no objections are filed.
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment “Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 15).”	de novo	agree with court The court granted the plaintiff's motion based on the R&R's finding that the ALJ committed procedural error by failing to address the claimant's color-vision limitation. The R&R cited Garrison v. Colvin and Harman v. Apfel to support remand rather than awarding benefits. The court adopted this reasoning. In Social Security cases, summary judgment is the standard mechanism for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. The court's decision to grant the motion and remand is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent when the record is fully developed but the ALJ failed to properly consider all limitations.
Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment “Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 21).”	de novo	agree with court The court denied the defendant's cross-motion because the plaintiff's motion was granted. This is a logical consequence of the court's decision to remand the case for further proceedings due to the ALJ's procedural error. The defendant's motion likely sought affirmance of the ALJ's decision, which the court found to be flawed.
Remanding Case for Further Proceedings “The case is REMANDED for further proceedings.”	de novo	agree with court The court remanded the case for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits. This is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent, specifically Harman v. Apfel, which holds that when the vocational expert's testimony fails to address a claimant's limitations, the court should remand for further proceedings rather than awarding benefits. The court correctly applied this precedent.

The order itself: sound — The order is sound. The court correctly applied the standard of review for a Report and Recommendation, noting that no objections were filed. It adopted the R&R, which correctly identified the ALJ's procedural error (failure to address color-vision limitation) and applied the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent (*Garrison* and *Harman*) to support remand rather than awarding benefits. The court's reasoning is concise but sufficient for a case where no objections were filed and the R&R was thorough.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

8 || MARIA LUISA BARRETO, Case No.: 3:18-cv-00755-BEN-AGS Plaintiff, ? ORDER: 10 || Vv. (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 11 || NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting RECOMMENDATION; Commissioner of Social Security, (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S | B Defendant.| MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; . 14 5 (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 JUDGMENT; and M7 (4) REMANDING CASE FOR 18 . FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 19 Plaintiff Maria Luisa Barreto filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social 20 || Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and 21 supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, 22 || and Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to 23 || Plaintiff's motion. 24 On August 8, 2019, the Honorable Andrew G. Schopler issued a thoughtful and 25 ||thorough Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's 26 || motion, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, and remand the case for further proceedings. 27 || See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1021 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that when “the 28 || record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled,”

1 court should remand for further proceedings). In this case, the Report and 2 || Recommendation note that while the record is fully developed, the ALJ committed 3 || procedural error because the vocational expert never addressed the effect of Maria’s 4 color-vision limitation on her ability to find work. “In cases where the testimony of the 5 || vocational expert has failed to address a claimant’s limitations as established by 6 ||improperly discredited evidence, we consistently have remanded for further proceedings 7 ||rather than payment of benefits.” Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2000). 8 || Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 22, 2019. Neither party 9 || has filed any objections. 10 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition” of a 11 || magistrate judge on a dispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 12 636(b)(1). “[T]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the [report and 13 ||recommendation] that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b}(3). 14 || However, “[t]he statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 15 judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 16 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also 17 || Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). “Neither the Constitution nor 18 ||the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 19 the parties themselves accept as correct.” Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 20 The Court has considered and agrees with the Report and Recommendation. The 21 ||Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 24). Plaintiff's motion for 22 ||summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 15). Defendant’s cross-motion for 23 ||summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 21). The case is REMANDED for further 24 || proceedings. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 || A Ly f 27 Dated: Aves, 2019 Ligier, MA /fuon. Roger’. Benitez 28 Unitéd States District Judge