Facts

Michelle Vargas sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for supplemental security income.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Vargas claimed the ALJ erred in discounting her treating neurologist's opinion because the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the allegations and claimed the ALJ properly provided reasons for rejecting the opinion of plaintiff's treating neurologist.

Result

The court reversed the decision of the Commissioner and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. The court found the ALJ merely stated plaintiff's treating neurologist's opinion was not supported by or consistent with the record, which was insufficient reasoning because any real explanation or reasoning was lacking. Further, the court found the ALJ improperly made a blanket statement regarding regulatory factors without explaining any analysis.