(SS) Sigala v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOEL SIGALA, Case No. 1:23-cv-1651 JLT GSA 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL, DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO AFFIRM, AND 14 v. REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SENTENCE 15 LELAND DUDEK, FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) Acting Commissioner of Social Security 1, 16 ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT Defendant. IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF JOEL SIGALA 17 AND AGAINST DEFENDANT LELAND DUDEK, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF 18 SOCIAL SECURITY 19 (Docs. 14, 18, 20)

20 Joel Sigala seeks judicial review of a final decision denying his application for a period of 21 disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Docs. 1, 14.) 22 Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in identifying his residual functional capacity because the ALJ 23 failed to explain discrepancies “between the opinion evidence regarding Plaintiff’s mental [and 24 physical] impairments he found persuasive and the RFC in accordance with the regulations.” 25 (Doc. 14 at 2; id. at 3-8.) 26 The magistrate judge found the mental RFC was not inconsistent with the medical opinion 27 1 Leland Dudek became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security in February 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Leland Dudek as the defendant in this action. 1 | of Dr. Williamson, as Plaintiff argued. (Doc. 20 at 5.) However, the magistrate judge determined 2 | the ALJ erred in evaluating the evidence related Plaintiff's ability to reach and formulating the 3 | physical RFC. (Ud. at 5-9.) The magistrate judge found “[r]emand is warranted for the ALJ to 4 | reevaluate the evidence concerning Plaintiff's right side reaching ability and to articulate a 5 | reasoned conclusion....” (/d. at 9-10.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the 6 | Court grant Plaintiffs appeal, deny Defendant’s cross-motion, remand for further administrative 7 || proceedings, and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Ud. at 10.) 8 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 9 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 20 at 10.) The Court also advised the parties the 10 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 11 | Cd., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the 12 | Commissioner filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 14 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 15 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 11, 2025 (Doc. 20) are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or remand (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. 19 3. The Commissioner’s request to affirm (Doc. 18) is DENIED. 20 4. The action is REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 21 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 22 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Joel Sigala 23 and against Defendant Leland Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ March 26, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28