Burrell v. Colvin, No. 12-16673 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff appealed the denial of his application for social security disability benefits. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports neither the ALJ's rejection of plaintiff's testimony nor his rejection of the medical assessment by plaintiff's treating physician. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's affirmance of the denial of benefits. However, because the court has "serious doubt" as to whether plaintiff is, in fact, disabled under Garrison v. Colvin, the district court shall remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings on an open record. On remand, the court did not require the ALJ to require as true plaintiff's testimony, the treating physician's assessment, or any other evidence.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel reversed the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of Adrian Burrell’s application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The panel held that there was not substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) rejection of Burrell’s testimony, or the ALJ’s rejection of the medical assessment by Burrell’s treating physician. The panel also held that because it had “serious doubt” as to whether Burrell was, in fact, disabled pursuant to Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1021 (9th Cir. 2014), the district court shall remand the case to the ALJ for further proceedings, and the ALJ shall not be required to credit-as-true any evidence. Judge Schroeder dissented. Judge Schroeder agreed with the majority that substantial evidence supported neither the ALJ’s discrediting of Burrell’s testimony nor his rejection of the treating physician’s medical assessment, but she would remand for an award of benefits. Judge Schroeder would hold that the three prerequisites of Garrison are met, would credit-as-true the discredited evidence, and would not find that there were serious doubts as to whether Burrell was disabled within the meaning of the Act.
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.