Clifford A. Ashing v. Michael J. Astrue, No. 2:2009cv09343 - Document 17 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky. (ib)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clifford A. Ashing v. Michael J. Astrue Doc. 17 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD A. ASHING, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 09-09343 RZ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 17 This matter comes before the Court a third time. The first time, the parties 18 stipulated to a remand, and the Court remanded in accordance with their stipulation. [AR 19 273-77] The second time, the Court remanded, finding that the Administrative Law Judge 20 had not complied with the Court s order. [AR 375 ] The Administrative Law Judge held 21 a further hearing, issued interrogatories to a medical expert, and again denied Plaintiff s 22 application for disability benefits. [AR 351] Plaintiff again seeks review. 23 In this Court, the Commissioner does not defend the latest decision he made. 24 Rather, he states that Defendant s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, upon 25 further review of the record, requested [sic] a voluntary remand of the case. (Defendant s 26 Memorandum in Support of Defendant s Request for Remand For Further Proceedings at 27 3:3-4.) The bulk of Defendant s Memorandum is devoted to the issue of whether the Court 28 should remand, or instead award benefits. Dockets.Justia.com 1 This is not a situation, however, where the Court need make the decision as 2 to whether the present record justifies a Court award of benefits. Instead, the Court 3 understands Defendant to say that the Social Security Administration should have granted 4 an administrative appeal while it had the time to do so; it did not realize that before, but it 5 does now. Thus, Defendant asks to be put back in the same position as if the matter still 6 were pending in the administrative process. 7 The Court grants that request. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner 8 for further proceedings. The Commissioner suggests that the Court place several 9 conditions upon the remand, including that the Commissioner assign the matter to a 10 different administrative law judge, and that the administrative law judge be instructed to 11 take further steps. The Court sees no need to order the Commissioner to do things that the 12 Commissioner is perfectly free to do himself, and which the Commissioner states to the 13 Court should be done. 14 The Court expresses no view as to whether the most recent administrative 15 decision complies with the Court s previous order of remand, and the Court makes no other 16 substantive rulings. Rather, the Court grants the Commissioner s request solely to allow 17 the Commissioner the opportunity for further review, as the Commissioner himself has 18 determined that he made a mistake in not granting such administrative review. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: August 19, 2010 22 23 24 RALPH ZAREFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
