Stahl v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 9, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00370
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAUREN S., Case No.: 23-cv-0370-MMA-DEB 11 Plaintiff, REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION GRANTING 13 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 Social Security,1

15 Defendant. [DKT. NO. 13] 16 17 This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Judge Michael 18 M. Anello pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c). 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff Lauren S. seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of 21 her application for disability benefits. Dkt. No. 1.2 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 22 judgment seeking a remand for benefits or additional proceedings. Dkt. No. 13. The 23 Commissioner filed an opposition, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. Nos. 15–16. For the reasons 24 set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for 25

26 1 Martin O’Malley is substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 27 2 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the initial of the last 28 1 Summary Judgment and REMANDING this action for further proceedings consistent with 2 this opinion. 3 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income alleging disability beginning 5 November 4, 2017. AR 11.3 The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s 6 application initially and on reconsideration. Id. Plaintiff requested and received an 7 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) hearing, after which the ALJ issued a written decision 8 finding Plaintiff not disabled. AR 8–20. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for 9 review (AR 1–7), and this case followed. Dkt. No. 1. 10 11 III. SUMMARY OF THE ALJ’S DECISION 12 The ALJ’s decision followed the five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. 13 § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v). At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had “not engaged in 14 substantial gainful activity since October 2, 2020, the application date.” AR 13. 15 At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: anxiety, 16 autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, learning disorder, mild cannabis 17 use disorder, neurocognitive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. 18 At step three, the ALJ found Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of 19 impairments that met or medically equaled those in the Commissioner’s Listing of 20 Impairments. Id. The ALJ then evaluated whether Plaintiff satisfied the “paragraph B” 21 criteria. AR 14–15. 22 To satisfy the “paragraph B” criteria, the mental impairments must result in at least 23 one extreme or two marked limitations in the following broad areas of functioning: 24 25 3 “AR” refers to the Administrative Record lodged on April 26, 2023. Dkt. No. 10. The 26 Court’s citations to the AR use the page references on the original document rather than 27 the page numbers designated by the Court’s case management/electronic case filing system (“CM/ECF”). For all other documents, the Court’s citations are to the page numbers affixed 28 1 (1) understand, remember, or apply information; (2) interact with others; (3) concentrate, 2 persist, or maintain pace; and (4) adapt or manage oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpart P, 3 app. 1. Applicants are scored in each area and are assessed to have none (no limitation), 4 mild, moderate, marked, or extreme limitation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. 5 Here, the ALJ found Plaintiff had mild limitations in two of the four functional areas: 6 understand, remember, or apply information; and adapt or manage oneself. AR 14. The 7 ALJ found a moderate limitation in the two other areas: interact with others; and 8 concentrate, persist, or maintain pace. Id. Because Plaintiff’s mental impairments did “not 9 cause at least two ‘marked’ limitations or one ‘extreme’ limitation, the ‘paragraph B’ 10 criteria [were] not satisfied.” Id. 11 Before proceeding to step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the residual functioning 12 capacity (“RFC”) to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the following 13 limitation: Plaintiff “is limited to simple repetitive tasks in a nonpublic setting.” AR 15. 14 At step four, the ALJ found Plaintiff had no past relevant work. AR 18. 15 At step five, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs that exist in significant 16 numbers in the national economy. AR 19. The ALJ, therefore, concluded Plaintiff was not 17 under a disability since October 2, 2020. AR 19–20. 18 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 The Court reviews the ALJ’s decision to determine whether the ALJ applied the 20 correct legal standards and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 21 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2005). Substantial 22 evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 23 support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019) (quoting 24 Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). It is “more than a mere 25 scintilla, but less than a preponderance . . . .” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1009 (9th 26 Cir. 2014) (quoting Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007)). 27 The Court may not impose its own reasoning to affirm the ALJ’s decision. Garrison, 28 759 F.3d at 1010. The Court “must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm 1 simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’” Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 2 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 882 (9th 3 Cir. 2006)). “[I]f evidence exists to support more than one rational interpretation, [the 4 Court] must defer to the [ALJ’s] decision . . . .” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 5 359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 Plaintiff filed her claim after March 27, 2017; therefore, the 2017 amendments 7 governing medical opinions apply. Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2022). 8 Under those amendments, the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 9 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 10 finding(s), including those from . . . medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). Instead, 11 all medical opinions are evaluated based on supportability, consistency, relationship with 12 the claimant, specialization, and other factors. Id. § 404.1520c(c). The ALJ is required to 13 explain the most important factors, supportability and consistency, but is not required to 14 discuss the other factors. Id. § 404.1520c(b)(2). Supportability means a medical source 15 must support the opinion by explaining the “relevant . . . objective medical evidence.” 16 Woods, 32 F.4th at 791–92 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1)). Consistency means the 17 extent to which a medical opinion is “consistent . . . with the evidence from other medical 18 sources and nonmedical sources in the claim.” Id. at 792 (citing 20 C.F.R. 19 § 404.1520c(c)(2)). 20 “Even under the new regulations, an ALJ cannot reject an examining or treating 21 doctor’s opinion as unsupported or inconsistent without providing an explanation 22 supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 792. The ALJ must “articulate . . . how 23 persuasive” the ALJ finds “all of the medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b). 24 The Court will not reverse for harmless error. Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 25 (2015) (“ALJ errors in social security cases are harmless if they are ‘inconsequential to the 26 ultimate nondisability determination’ . . . .”) (quoting Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 27 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006)). 28 1 V. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff alleges the ALJ erred by: (1) rejecting the opinions of Dr. Eric Raimo, 3 Plaintiff’s psychiatrist; and (2) discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. 4 Dkt. No. 13 at 5–16. Plaintiff also alleges the Appeal’s Council failed to properly consider 5 Dr. Raimo’s supplemental opinion. Dkt. No. 13 at 16–18. The Court finds the ALJ’s 6 decision erred in its analysis of both Dr. Raimo’s opinions and Plaintiff’s subjective 7 symptom testimony, and, therefore, recommends remanding for further proceedings. 8 A. Dr. Raimo’s Opinions 9 The ALJ found Dr. Raimo’s opinions not persuasive because: (1) “[his] treatment 10 notes did not document positive objective findings relating to [Plaintiff’s] mental 11 impairments”; and (2) they “are not consistent with fairly normal mental status 12 examinations by Dr. Kim and Dr. Netter, the low average scores in WAIS IV testing, and 13 the normal activities of daily living described by [Plaintiff].” AR 18 (citations omitted). 14 Plaintiff claims the ALJ’s consistency and supportability analyses of Dr. Raimo’s 15 opinions are erroneous. Dkt. No. 13 at 6. The Court agrees. 16 As discussed above, supportability and consistency are the most important factors in 17 evaluating medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). The ALJ, therefore, is required 18 to specifically discuss them. Id. Although “[t]he ALJ is responsible for determining 19 credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities,” 20 Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115–16 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 21 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)), the Court must ensure the ALJ applied the correct legal 22 standards, accurately interpreted the record, and reached a decision supported by 23 substantial evidence. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1214 n.1 (“We may reverse the ALJ’s decision 24 to deny benefits only if it is based upon legal error or is not supported by substantial 25 evidence.”); Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722–23 (9th Cir. 1998) (reversing the ALJ’s 26 decision where his “paraphrasing of record material is not entirely accurate regarding the 27 content or tone of the record”). 28 1 1. Supportability 2 The Court finds the ALJ committed legal error in rejecting Dr. Raimo’s opinions 3 because they “did not include objective findings” and, relatedly, because Dr. Raimo’s 4 “treatment notes did not document positive objective findings.” AR 16, 18. 5 In cases involving claimed disabilities resulting from mental illness, “a clinical 6 interview and a mental status evaluation . . . are objective measures and cannot be 7 discounted as a ‘self-report.’” Buck v. Berryhill, 869 F.3d 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2017); see 8 also Savannah v. Astrue, 252 F. App’x 783, 785 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Diagnosis [of mental 9 impairment] by a medical expert constitutes objective medical evidence of an 10 impairment.”). This is because “[d]iagnoses will always depend in part on the patient’s 11 self-report, as well as on the clinician’s observations of the patient. But such is the nature 12 of psychiatry.” Buck, 869 F.3d at 1049. 13 Here, Dr. Raimo’s records document numerous clinical interviews and evaluations 14 of Plaintiff. AR 51–59, 360–63, 381–92, 554–910, 911–16. Under Buck, these “are 15 objective measures and cannot be discounted as a ‘self-report.’” 869 F.3d at 1049. 16 The ALJ’s decision cites two exhibits to support his finding that Dr. Raimo lacked 17 objective findings, but those exhibits contain many objective findings. AR 16 (citing 18 Exs. 2F (AR 356–96) and 9F (AR 546–910)). The first exhibit (AR 356–96) includes: 19 (1) Dr. Raimo’s January 6, 2021 mental functional capacity assessment, rating nearly all 20 of Plaintiff’s mental functional capacities as extreme (AR 360–63); (2) Dr. Weckerly’s 21 2015 neuropsychological examination report, which includes test scores (AR 364–80); 22 (3) Dr. Raimo’s biweekly treatment notes from 2017 through 2019 (381–92); and (4) Dr. 23 Raimo’s four-page prescribed psychotropic medication summary (AR 393–96). The 24 second exhibit contains 365 pages of Dr. Raimo’s treatment notes, which include 25 assessments, diagnoses, lists of medications, treatment plans, histories, complaints, and 26 patient instructions. AR 546–910. 27 28 1 In sum, and contrary to the ALJ’s decision, Dr. Raimo’s records contain substantial 2 “objective findings.” The ALJ, therefore, erred by discounting Dr. Raimo’s opinions as 3 unsupported by objective findings. 4 2. Consistency 5 The Court also finds the ALJ’s decision erred in its consistency analysis of 6 Dr. Raimo’s opinions. 7 “[U]nder the new regulations, an ALJ cannot reject an examining or treating doctor’s 8 opinion . . . without providing an explanation supported by substantial evidence.” Woods, 9 32 F.4th at 792. The ALJ must consider and accurately characterize all relevant evidence. 10 Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1207 (9th Cir. 2001) (“In concluding that the most 11 recent medical evidence indicates [claimant] was improving, the ALJ selectively relied on 12 some entries in [claimant’s] records . . . and ignored the many others that indicated 13 continued, severe impairment.”); Michael S. v. Kijakazi, No. 4:20-cv-05196-MKD, 14 2022 WL 17260810, at *5 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 29, 2022) (“In focusing on a few generally 15 unremarkable exams to discount [a doctor’s] opinion when the longitudinal record shows 16 more mixed findings, the ALJ fails to accurately characterize the record during the period 17 at issue.”). 18 The ALJ found Dr. Raimo’s disability opinions “not consistent with fairly normal 19 mental status examinations by Dr. Kim and Dr. Netter, the low average scores in WAIS IV 20 testing, and the normal activities of daily living described by the claimant.” AR 18 21 (citations omitted). 22 The ALJ’s decision attributes a “fairly normal mental status examination” to 23 Dr. Netter (AR 18), and notes Plaintiff “made appropriate eye contact, was polite, and 24 spoke with normal speech” (AR 16). This summary, however, does not fairly portray 25 Dr. Netter’s report. Instead, the decision cites portions of Dr. Netter’s report that tend to 26 undermine Dr. Raimo’s opinions, while overlooking portions that tend to corroborate 27 Dr. Raimo. For example, Dr. Netter found “deficits in adaptive functioning” based on 28 scores below the first percentile in Adaptive Behavioral Composite testing. AR 406. 1 Dr. Netter also noted that previous testing found Plaintiff had an IQ score in the borderline 2 range. AR 409. And, contrary to the ALJ’s characterization of Dr. Netter’s report as a 3 “fairly normal mental status examination” (AR 18), Dr. Netter concluded her report by 4 stating Plaintiff presents a “complex clinical picture” (AR 410). 5 The ALJ’s decision is similarly selective in its summary of Dr. DeLorme’s report. 6 The ALJ’s decision cites Dr. DeLorme’s findings that Plaintiff had “age-appropriate 7 speech and communication, normal behavior, and appropriate motivation and 8 concentration during all tasks,” and an “IQ score of 94, which was in the average range of 9 intellectual functioning.” AR 16. But the decision does not take into account 10 Dr. DeLorme’s opinion that Plaintiff was likely to under-report her difficulties (AR 536), 11 or test results from which Dr. DeLorme concluded Plaintiff has: (1) “difficulty with 12 inattentiveness and sustained attention” (AR 541); (2) a “high likelihood of having a 13 disorder characterized by attention deficits” (id.); (3) autism spectrum disorder “requiring 14 very substantial support” (AR 542); and (4) “significant difficulty relating to others” (id.). 15 Dr. DeLorme’s test results also reveal that Plaintiff’s coping skills fell “well below 16 expectations” in many subdomains and “below expectations” in several others (AR 17 543). Based on these results, Dr. DeLorme concluded Plaintiff would struggle 18 with: (1) “controlling her emotions, showing consideration to others, adapting to 19 situations, and managing social consequences of her behaviors”; (2) “friendships, 20 showing care for others, appropriate interpersonal behavior, and conversational skills”; 21 (3) “following instructions and paying attention when someone is speaking”; (4) 22 “dressing and undressing tasks, toileting, washing and bathing, hygiene tasks, and caring 23 for her health”; (5) “responding to social cues, playing, and socializing with peers”; (6) 24 “finances (both making and using money), understanding her legal rights, traveling 25 outside of the home, and maintaining personal safety”; and (7) “grammar and expressive 26 language.” Id. 27 In sum, in discounting Dr. Raimo’s opinions and finding Plaintiff not disabled, the 28 ALJ’s decision selectively cited portions of medical reports tending to support a non- 1 disability. This warrants a remand. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1164 (9th Cir. 2 2014) (finding it is error for an ALJ to “cherry-pick[]” medical evidence disfavoring a 3 claimant instead of considering such evidence in the context of the record as a whole); 4 Regennitter v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 166 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1999) (remanding where 5 the ALJ inaccurately characterized the evidence as “significant walking activity with [the 6 claimant’s] daughter” after “[claimant] said he could walk very slowly with his four-year- 7 old daughter for one and one-half blocks if he rested in the middle”); Peng See v. Comm’r 8 of Soc. Sec., 500 F. App’x 676, 677 (9th Cir. 2012) (reversing where “the ALJ 9 impermissibly focused on portions of [a doctor’s] report that supported a finding of 10 disability while ignoring those that would support a finding that [the plaintiff] was 11 disabled.”). 12 B. Plaintiff’s Subjective Symptom Testimony 13 Plaintiff alleges the ALJ’s decision failed to articulate specific, clear, and convincing 14 reasons for discounting the following statements in her function and disability self-reports: 15 • She stopped working due to her “[t]rouble socially with boss, overwhelmed/stressed.” (AR 210). 16

17 • She is “too emotional” and “get[s] overwhelmed.” (AR 248).

18 • She needs reminders to “[t]ake a shower, clean, check on pets, grooming my 19 hair.” (AR 250).

20 • She prepares meals only 1-2 times per week and only makes microwave meals 21 because it is “too overwhelming.” (AR 250).

22 • She is not able to pay bills, handle a savings account, or use a 23 checkbook/money order. (AR 251).

24 • She has difficulty completing tasks, concentrating, understanding, and 25 sometimes getting along with others. (AR 253).

26 • She handles changes in routine “not very well” and her ability to handle stress 27 is “fair.” (AR 254).

28 1 • She was unable to complete the Function Report, and her mother “wrote down answers, as forms overwhelm her.” (AR 248). 2 3 Dkt. No. 13 at 12. 4 In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ must engage in a 5 two-step analysis. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 678 (9th Cir. 2017). “First, the ALJ 6 must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an 7 underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other 8 symptoms alleged.” Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014). Second, “[i]f the claimant 9 satisfies the first step . . . and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ can reject the 10 claimant’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms only by offering specific, clear 11 and convincing reasons for doing so.” Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014–15). 12 At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 13 reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. AR 16; accord Vasquez v. Astrue, 14 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding ALJ “satisfied the first prong of the ALJ’s 15 inquiry regarding the credibility of [plaintiff’s] complaints” where the “ALJ acknowledged 16 that [plaintiff’s] injuries ‘could reasonably be expected to produce some of the pain and 17 other symptoms alleged’”). 18 The ALJ found, however, that Plaintiff’s statements (and those of her mother) 19 “regarding the alleged intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms conflict 20 with the objective medical evidence.” AR 16. But the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s 21 statements are inconsistent with the “objective medical evidence” largely relies upon 22 Dr. Netter’s and Dr. DeLorme’s reports. Id. As discussed above, the ALJ’s decision does 23 not fairly characterize these reports. Thus, for the same reasons the Court found error in 24 the ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Raimo’s opinions, the Court also finds error in the ALJ’s 25 analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Glasgow v. Berryhill, No. 2:18-cv- 26 0265-DWC, 2018 WL 4140924, at *6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2018) (finding error where 27 the ALJ’s “assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony repeats some of the 28 errors the ALJ made in assessing the opinion evidence”). 1 The ALJ’s decision also cites the following activities of daily living (“ADLs”) as 2 inconsistent with Dr. Raimo’s, Plaintiff’s, and Plaintiff’s mother’s claims of disability: 3 “[s]he stated that she spent the day hanging out with friends, shopping, going to the movies, 4 playing video games, being homeschooled and doing independent study, reading, and 5 doing household chores. She also mentioned having her 18th birthday party at her house.” 6 AR 16. 7 The ALJ’s reliance on these ADLs is insufficient to constitute an independent 8 ground to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony for two reasons. First, the 9 ALJ’s decision does not identify which of these ADLs are inconsistent with which parts of 10 Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 494 11 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Because the ALJ failed to identify the testimony she found not credible, 12 she did not link that testimony to the particular parts of the record supporting her non- 13 credibility determination. This was legal error.”); Ammie B. v. Saul, 6:19-cv-145-SI, 14 2020 WL 1984894, at *8 (D. Or. Apr. 27, 2020) (finding error where the ALJ “summarized 15 portions of the medical record,” but “did not link that medical evidence to any specific 16 testimony”). 17 Second, the ALJ’s decision does not explain how the cited ADLs (i.e., watching 18 movies, playing games, having a birthday party, having friends, home schooling, and 19 performing certain household chores) are inconsistent with a disability finding. See 20 Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he mere fact that a plaintiff 21 has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited 22 walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from her credibility as to her overall 23 disability. One does not need to be ‘utterly incapacitated’ in order to be disabled.”) (quoting 24 Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)); Popa v. Berryhill, 872 F.3d 901, 906 25 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding error where “the ALJ provided no explanation as to why 26 [claimant’s] ability to attend church weekly in the past, shop for groceries, and watch 27 television, establish that [claimant] possesses the ability to maintain regular attendance at 28 1 work”); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that “many 2 home activities may not be easily transferrable to a work environment . . . .”). 3 In sum, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision erred in its consideration of Plaintiff’s 4 subjective symptom testimony. The Court, therefore, recommends remanding Plaintiff’s 5 disability claim for further proceedings on this additional ground. 6 C. Dr. Raimo’s Supplemental Opinion 7 Following the ALJ’s decision, Plaintiff submitted a supplemental opinion from Dr. 8 Raimo to the Appeal’s Council. AR 25–29. The Appeals Council found Dr. Raimo’s 9 supplemental opinion “does not show a reasonable probability that it would change the 10 outcome of the decision. We did not exhibit this evidence.” AR 2. 11 The parties dispute whether the supplemental opinion is new and material (as 12 Plaintiff contends), or “merely a repeat opinion” (as the Commissioner contends). 13 See Dkt. No. 13 at 17; Dkt. No. 15 at 18. Given the errors found above, however, this 14 dispute is immaterial. Plaintiff will have the opportunity to submit Dr. Raimo’s 15 supplemental opinion for consideration on remand. The issue, therefore, is moot. See 16 Rowan W. v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-cv-3010-JAG, 2023 WL 2764636, at *4 (E.D. Wash. 17 Mar. 31, 2023) (“Because the Court remands the matter on the grounds addressed above, 18 and the ALJ will necessarily consider evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, the Court 19 need not decide whether the Appeals Council erred by declining to remand the matter based 20 on evidence submitted to it.”); Augustine ex rel. Ramirez v. Astrue, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 21 1153 n.7 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“[The] Court need not address the other claims plaintiff raises, 22 none of which would provide plaintiff with any further relief than granted, and all of which 23 can be addressed on remand.”). 24 VI. REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 25 Plaintiff argues an immediate award of benefits is necessary under the credit-as-true 26 rule. Dkt. No. 13 at 18–19. “The decision whether to remand a case for additional evidence, 27 or simply to award benefits is within the discretion of the court.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 682 28 (citation omitted). Because a properly formulated RFC might still support a conclusion that 1 || Plaintiff was not disabled, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate here. See Bunnell 2 Barnhart, 336 F.3d 1112, 1116 (th Cir. 2003) (remanding for further administrative 3 || proceedings where several “outstanding issues” remained to be resolved, it was “not clear 4 ||from the record that an [ALJ] would be required to find the claimant disabled and award 5 || disability benefits”). 6 Vil. CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT 8 || Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, REMAND for further proceedings, and enter 9 || JUDGMENT in Plaintiff's favor. Dkt. No. 13. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objection to this report must be filed 11 || with the Court and served on all parties no later than February 23, 2024. The document 12 ||should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with 14 Court and served on all parties no later than March 1, 2024. The parties are advised 15 || that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 16 || objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th 17 1991). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: February 9, 2024 — x Dando oa 71 Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28