Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 JEFFREY CLAYTON A., 8 Plaintiff, Case No. C24-0086 RSM 9 v. ORDER REVERSING DENIAL OF 10 BENEFITS AND REMANDING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial his application for Supplemental Security Income. 14 Dkt. 10. Plaintiff contends the ALJ committed several errors and argues that based on those 15 errors, the Court must remand for an award of benefits, or alternatively remand for further 16 proceedings. Id. at 2. As discussed below, the Court REVERSES the Commissioner’s final 17 decision and REMANDS the matter for further administrative proceedings under sentence four 18 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 19 DISCUSSION 20 In his Opening Brief, Plaintiff assigns the following errors to the ALJ’s decision: 21 improper evaluation of medical opinion evidence, improper evaluation of his symptom 22 testimony, failure to include relevant limitations in his residual functional capacity (RFC), and 23 misconstruction of the testimony of the vocational expert. Dkt. 10 at 1. Plaintiff further ORDER REVERSING DENIAL OF 1 contends that based on these errors, the Court must remand the matter for an award of benefits, 2 or alternatively for further administrative proceedings. Id. 3 Remand for an award of benefits “is a rare and prophylactic exception to the well- 4 established ordinary remand rule.” Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2017). The 5 Ninth Circuit has established a three-step framework for deciding whether a case may be 6 remanded for an award of benefits. Id. at 1045. First, the Court must determine whether the ALJ 7 has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence. Id. (citing Garrison v. 8 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 20140)). Second, the Court must determine “whether the 9 record has been fully developed, whether there are outstanding issues that must be resolved 10 before a determination of disability can be made, and whether further administrative proceedings

11 would be useful.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) 12 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Only if the first two steps are satisfied can the 13 Court determine whether, “if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ 14 would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020. And 15 “[e]ven if [the Court] reach[es] the third step and credits [the improperly rejected evidence] as 16 true, it is within the court’s discretion either to make a direct award of benefits or to remand for 17 further proceedings.” Leon, 880 F.3d at 1045 (citing Treichler, 773 F.3d at 1101). 18 Defendant avers there are several outstanding issues that would benefit from remanding 19 for further proceedings. Dkt. 16 at 2–3. Specifically, Defendant argues the Court should remand 20 so the ALJ can reevaluate Plaintiff’s RFC and the medical opinion evidence. Id. at 3. In his

21 Reply, Plaintiff, after reviewing Defendant’s Response, concedes this case does not present the 22 “rare circumstances” that would warrant a remand for an award of benefits. Dkt. 17 at 2. Given 23 Plaintiff’s concession, the Court accordingly remands this matter for further proceedings. ORDER REVERSING DENIAL OF 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and this 3 case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 4 405(g). On remand, the ALJ should reevaluate Plaintiff’s RFC and the medical opinion 5 evidence. 6 DATED this 30th day of July, 2024. A 7 8 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER REVERSING DENIAL OF