Mier v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 27, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01349
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RASLAIE M., 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C21-1349-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 The parties agree that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in denying Plaintiff’s 15 applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. In her opening 16 brief, Plaintiff requested a remand for a finding of disability, or further proceedings in the 17 alternative, and the Commissioner filed a response brief requesting a remand for further 18 proceedings. (Dkt. ## 12, 15.) Plaintiff did not file a reply brief. As discussed below, the Court 19 REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision and REMANDS the matter for further 20 administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 The Court has discretion to remand for further proceedings or for a finding of disability. 23 See Marcia v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990). However, a remand for an immediate 1 award of benefits is an “extreme remedy,” appropriate “only in ‘rare circumstances.’” 2 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Treichler v. Comm’r of 3 Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2014)). 4 Before remanding a case for an award of benefits, three requirements must be met. First,

5 the ALJ must have “failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether 6 claimant testimony or medical opinion.” Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 495 (quoting Garrison v. 7 Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014)). Second, the Court must conclude “the record has 8 been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose.” Id. 9 In so doing, the Court considers the existence of “outstanding issues” that must be resolved 10 before a disability determination can be made. Id. (quoting Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1105). Third, 11 the Court must conclude that, “if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the 12 ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand.” Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 13 F.3d at 1021). Finally, even with satisfaction of the three requirements, the Court retains 14 flexibility in determining the proper remedy. Id. The Court may remand for further proceedings

15 “when the record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled 16 within the meaning of the Social Security Act.” Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021). 17 In this case, the parties agree that the ALJ’s decision contains legal error, namely in the 18 ALJ’s failure to address the opinion of Archana Nair, M.D., and the ALJ’s failure to “consider 19 the possible applicability of a listing level impairment based on Plaintiff’s full scale IQ scores 20 and history of impairments.” (Dkt. # 15 at 5.) The Commissioner filed a motion for remand 21 requesting that the court permit the ALJ to: (1) reevaluate all the opinion evidence and Plaintiff’s 22 subjective complaints, (2) reevaluate Plaintiff’s impairments at steps two and three, (3) reassess 23 Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), (4) provide Plaintiff with the opportunity for a 1 new hearing, (5) further develop the record, and (6) issue a new decision. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s 2 opening brief contends that a remand for further proceedings is required “[a]t a minimum,” but 3 requests a finding of disability because if the improperly discounted evidence were credited, she 4 would be found disabled. (Dkt. # 12 at 18.)

5 In her motion to remand, the Commissioner identified several of the ALJ’s findings as to 6 Plaintiff’s allegations that she contends are supported by substantial evidence and cast serious 7 doubt on Plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits, and also points to various conflicts in the medical 8 evidence that should be resolved on remand. (Dkt. # 15 at 5-6.) Under these circumstances, and 9 because Plaintiff did not file a response to the Commissioner’s motion for remand, the Court 10 finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the extraordinary remedy of a remand for a finding of 11 benefits is appropriate here. See Leon v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 1044, 1045 (9th Cir. 2017) (“An 12 automatic award of benefits in a disability benefits case is a rare and prophylactic exception to 13 the well-established ordinary remand rule.”). 14 III. CONCLUSION

15 For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED, and this 16 case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 17 § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ should: (1) reevaluate all the opinion evidence and Plaintiff’s 18 subjective complaints, (2) reevaluate Plaintiff’s impairments at steps two and three, (3) reassess 19 Plaintiff’s RFC, (4) provide Plaintiff with the opportunity for a new hearing, (5) further develop 20 the record, and (6) issue a new decision. 21 \\ 22 \\ 23 1 Dated this 27th day of April, 2022. 2 A 3 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23