Hakop Ashchyan v. Martin OMalley

Opinion

HAKOP A., Case No. 2:24-cv-02950-FLA (BFM)

Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT LELAND DUDEK, Acting AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner of Social Security, [DKT. 16] Defendant.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the Complaint, the records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), and Defendant’s objections to the Report. The court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. The Report recommends that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security disability benefits be reversed and this matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings. Dkt. 16. The Commissioner’s objections to the Report, Dkt. 18, do not warrant a change to the Report’s findings or recommendations. / / / The Commissioner objects that the Appeals Council’s rejection of new evidence, as part of its denial of review of the ALJ’s decision, was supported by substantial evidence. Dkt. 18 at 3. The court, however, does not review the Appeals Council’s denial of review for substantial evidence. “When the Appeals Council denies a request for review, it is a non-final agency action not subject to judicial review because the ALJ’s decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner.” Taylor v. Comm’n of Social Sec. Admin., 659 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, federal courts have the authority to review, as the Report did here, whether evidence presented for the first time to the Appeals Council “should have been considered,” as required by the agency’s regulations. Id. at 1232 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b)). “Where the Appeals Council was required to consider additional evidence, but failed to do so, remand to the ALJ is appropriate so that the ALJ can reconsider its decision in light of the additional evidence.” Id. As the Report found, the evidence presented to the Appeals Council reflected erosive changes to multiple joints. Dkt. 16 at 13; Dkt. 9-3 at 21. It is unlikely such changes “happened overnight.” Dkt. 16 at 13. It, therefore, should not have been rejected by the Appeals Council as not relating to the period on or before the date of the ALJ’s decision. See Taylor, 659 F.3d at 1233 (“[I]f the Appeals Council rejected [the medical evidence] because it believed it to concern a [later] time . . . , its rejection was improper.”); see also Nadon v. Saul, 851 F. App’x 24, 27 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The Appeals Council …. erroneously believed that [the medical] opinion ‘d[id] not relate to the time period at issue’ in [Plaintiff’s] benefits application. Misunderstanding the temporal scope of a medical opinion is error.”); Edgecomb v. Berryhill, 741 F. App’x 390, 393 (9th Cir. 2018) (remanding case to the agency where “the Appeals Council failed to consider [the medical evidence] on the mistaken belief that it did not relate to the period before the date of the ALJ’s decision”). Thus, the Report properly recommended remand to the agency for consideration of the new evidence. Dkt. 16 at 14. The court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. 2. The decision of the ALJ is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. 3. Judgment shall be entered consistent with this Order. 4. The court Clerk shall serve this Order and the Judgment on all counsel or parties of record. Dated: March 28, 2025

FERNANDO L7AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge