Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 18, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05656
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 OSCAR L., 8 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C21-5656-BAT 9 v. ORDER REVERSING THE 10 COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 11 Defendant. 12

13 Plaintiff seeks review of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. 14 The parties agree the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded but disagree as to the 15 scope of the remand. Dkt. 15, 17. For the reasons below, the Court REVERSES the 16 Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDS the matter for further administrative proceedings 17 under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 18 DISCUSSION 19 The parties agree the ALJ’s decision should be reversed but disagree whether the case 20 should be remanded for further proceedings or for calculation of an award of benefits. The Court 21 retains the discretion to remand a case for further proceedings or for a finding of disability. See 22 Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990). A remand for a finding of disability is an 23 “extreme remedy,” appropriate “only in ‘rare circumstances.’” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 1 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Treichler v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 2 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014)). 3 Before remanding a case for a finding of disability, three requirements must be met. 4 First, the ALJ must have “‘failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence,

5 whether claimant testimony or medical opinion.’” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 495 (quoting 6 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014)). Second, the Court must conclude “‘the 7 record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful 8 purpose.’” Id. In so doing, the Court considers the existence of “‘outstanding issues’” that must 9 be resolved before a disability determination can be made. Id. (quoting Treichler, 775 F.3d at 10 1105). Third, the Court must conclude that, “‘if the improperly discredited evidence were 11 credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand.’” Id. 12 (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021). 13 The parties agree the ALJ’s decision contains error, although the Court notes the 14 Commissioner’s brief does not identify any error. Dkt. 15 at 1. Thus, the first step of the credit-

15 as-true test is met. 16 Plaintiff contends the Court should remand for benefits because if the medical opinions 17 the ALJ discounted are credited as true, Plaintiff would be unable to perform the jobs identified 18 by the ALJ at step five. Dkt. 17 at 4. However, the Court cannot credit evidence as true in a 19 vacuum and instead must consider whether the record contains any outstanding issues or 20 conflicts. See Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2017); Treichler, 775 F.3d at 21 1101. 22 The Commissioner contends there are outstanding issues to resolve noting the medical 23 opinions in the record describe varying degrees of physical limitation. Specifically, the 1 Commissioner notes Plaintiff was found by various sources to be capable of no work, sedentary 2 work, or medium work. See Tr. 1106-07 (the ALJ’s discussion of these opinions). The 3 Commissioner argues the differing opinions as to the degree of limitation establishes that further 4 proceedings would be useful to permit the ALJ to resolve the conflicts. Dkt. 15 at 5.

5 The Court agrees. Plaintiff argues the ALJ's assessment of the medical evidence is 6 flawed. Dkt. 17 at 4-5. But this is not the rare case where the record overwhelmingly suggests 7 only one conclusion: that Plaintiff is unable to work. See, e.g., Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 8 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2014). Instead, the record contains conflicting medical opinions, and the ALJ 9 identified inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s allegations and the evidence. See Tr. 1102-06. The 10 Court thus cannot say remand for benefits is appropriate because “it is clear from the record that 11 the ALJ would be required to find [the claimant] disabled” were such evidence credited. 12 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1105. Given the record indicates conflicts in the severity of Plaintiff's 13 limitations, the Court finds further proceedings would serve a useful purpose. See, e.g., 14 Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 409 (9th Cir. 2015) (“The ALJ’s well-supported credibility

15 concerns raise additional factual issues that require resolution.”). Accordingly, the Court finds 16 that it is appropriate to remand this matter for further proceedings. 17 The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's contention that this is not the first time the 18 Commissioner has erred in assessing her claim, and the Court should not perpetuate a game of 19 "heads we win, tails let's play again" in which the Commissioner repeatedly reviews claims in an 20 erroneous manner. Another erroneous assessment of Plaintiff's disability claim will be frowned 21 upon. 22 23 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this case is 3 REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 4 On remand, the ALJ shall reassess the medical opinion evidence, reconsider Plaintiff’s

5 allegations and any other part of the decision as necessary, further develop the record, 6 redetermine residual functional capacity as needed, address the remaining steps of the five-step 7 disability evaluation process, and offer Plaintiff the opportunity for another hearing, and issue a 8 new decision. 9 Additionally, as set forth by the Commissioner of Social Security (Dkt. 15 at 5), this case 10 shall also be reassigned to a different ALJ on remand. 11 DATED this 18th day of March, 2022. 12 A 13 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23