Taylor v. Astrue

Ninth Circuit

Taylor v. Astrue

345 F. App'x 259

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 2009

DocketNo. 08-35661

StatusPublished

This text of 345 F. App'x 259 (Taylor v. Astrue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Astrue, 345 F. App'x 259 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Kenneth Taylor appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. Reviewing de novo, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

Taylor argues that the ALJ failed to properly develop the record because the ALJ did not consider Dr. Tosomeen’s medical records, which Taylor’s lawyer faxed to the ALJ after the hearing. The Commissioner responds that any error was harmless because the Appeals Council considered the records and held that the records did not warrant a change to the ALJ’s decision. Because the Appeals Council did not explain why Dr. Toso-meen’s records did not affect the result in Taylor’s case, we have no basis upon which to determine whether the ALJ’s error was harmless. For example, it is entirely unclear on the administrative record before us what effect, if any, the diagnosis of “failed neck syndrome” might have had on Taylor’s residual functional capacity. Consequently, we reverse and remand in order for the ALJ to consider Dr. Tosomeen’s records and to explain whether they change the analysis or result.

We do not embrace any of Taylor’s other challenges to the ALJ’s decision for the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or because there is no merit to Taylor’s arguments.

REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Kenneth Taylor appeals from the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his applications for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. Reviewing de novo, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.

Taylor argues that the ALJ failed to properly develop the record because the ALJ did not consider Dr. Tosomeen’s medical records, which Taylor’s lawyer faxed to the ALJ after the hearing. The Commissioner responds that any error was harmless because the Appeals Council considered the records and held that the records did not warrant a change to the ALJ’s decision. Because the Appeals Council did not explain why Dr. Toso-meen’s records did not affect the result in Taylor’s case, we have no basis upon which to determine whether the ALJ’s error was harmless. For example, it is entirely unclear on the administrative record before us what effect, if any, the diagnosis of “failed neck syndrome” might have had on Taylor’s residual functional capacity. Consequently, we reverse and remand in order for the ALJ to consider Dr. Tosomeen’s records and to explain whether they change the analysis or result.

We do not embrace any of Taylor’s other challenges to the ALJ’s decision for the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, or because there is no merit to Taylor’s arguments.

REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 F. App'x 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-astrue-ca9-2009.