From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrera v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Aug 28, 2009
Civ. No. 08-826-CL (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2009)

Summary

affirming adverse credibility determination where it was not clear from the record that conservative treatment was necessitated by a lack of financial resources

Summary of this case from Carter v. Astrue

Opinion

Civ. No. 08-826-CL.

August 28, 2009


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#20) is adopted. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for the ALJ to consider Dr. Chapin's opinion and to correct the other errors identified in the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Barrera v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Aug 28, 2009
Civ. No. 08-826-CL (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2009)

affirming adverse credibility determination where it was not clear from the record that conservative treatment was necessitated by a lack of financial resources

Summary of this case from Carter v. Astrue
Case details for

Barrera v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:GRACIELA S. BARRERA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Aug 28, 2009

Citations

Civ. No. 08-826-CL (D. Or. Aug. 28, 2009)

Citing Cases

Carter v. Astrue

Id.; Tr. 25. Plaintiff's speculation as to the reason interferon treatment was never suggested may be…