Shiegel v. Saul

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 18, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00556
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 PAULINE SHIEGEL, Case No. 2:21-cv-00556-NJK

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 11 Defendant(s). 12 This is a social security appeal in which Plaintiff appears to argue that the ALJ erred by 13 characterizing temporary circumstances as representative of Plaintiff’s overall mental health 14 condition, that the mental health findings made by the ALJ are not supported by the record as a 15 whole, and/or that the mental health findings made by the ALJ do not show that Plaintiff is able to 16 work. See, e.g., Docket No. 30 at 12-15. The Ninth Circuit has developed a robust jurisprudence 17 on these types of issues in the context of mental health, but neither party has provided meaningful 18 discussion of these cases. Cf. Green v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 4291960, at *7 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 19 2018) (citing Attmore v. Colvin, 827 F.3d 872, 878 (9th Cir. 2016), Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 20 1154, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 2014), Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1017 (9th Cir. 2014), Ryan v. 21 Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2008), and Holohan v. Massanari, 246 22 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001)), adopted, 2018 WL 4286165 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2018).1, 2 The 23 24 1 The Commissioner cites to one Ninth Circuit case for the proposition that improvement 25 with treatment can undermine a claim of disability in the mental health context. See Docket No. 32 at 9 (citing Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017)). The Commissioner 26 does not provide meaningful explanation as to why that case governs based on the record for this appeal as opposed to the contrary Ninth Circuit case law concluding that an ALJ erred with respect 27 to mental health improvement. See, e.g., Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017-18.

28 2 While it appears that the Ninth Circuit cases may be pertinent to the issues in this case, the Court does not herein express any opinion on the merits of the parties’ arguments. 1} parties’ arguments should be presented in the context of the Ninth Circuit’s case law on these 2|| issues. 3 In light of the above, the Court hereby orders as follows: 4 First, after reviewing the cases cited herein and conducting their own appropriate research 5] into Ninth Circuit law on the specific issues raised in this appeal, counsel must confer on whether 6] a stipulation to remand is appropriate. This conference must take place in person, by telephone, 7| or by video, and must be completed by January 28, 2022. 8 Second, to the extent a stipulation to remand is not filed, Plaintiff must file a supplemental brief explaining in meaningful fashion how Ninth Circuit case law impacts (or does not impact) 10] the particular arguments presented in this case. That supplemental brief must be no longer than 11} 15 pages and must be filed by February 4, 2022. A supplemental response thereto (also limited to 12] 15 pages) must be filed by the Commissioner by February 18, 2022. Any reply (limited to ten pages) must be filed by February 25, 2022. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: January 18, 2022 “Tew Nancy a 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28