Leon v. Berryhill, No. 15-15277 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe "credit-as-true rule" permits, but does not require, a direct award of benefits on review but only where the ALJ has not provided sufficient reasoning for rejecting testimony and there are no outstanding issues on which further proceedings in the administrative court would be useful. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to remand for further administrative proceedings in a claimant's action seeking Title II disability insurance benefits. The panel clarified the district court's remand order, instructing the district court to remand to the ALJ consistent with the requirements pursuant to Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2014), with an open record on the issue of claimant's fatigue related to his capacity to undertake full time employment. On remand, claimant shall be permitted to cross-examine the Commissioner's medical consultants, but only to the extent such cross-examination concerns the issue of claimant's fatigue.
Court Description: Social Security. The panel affirmed the district court’s decision to remand for further administrative proceedings in a claimant’s action seeking Title II disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act; and clarified that remand to the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) should be with an open record on the issue of whether the claimant’s fatigue related to his capacity to undertake full time employment. The “credit-as-true rule” permits, but does not require, a direct award of benefits on review but only where the ALJ has not provided sufficient reasoning for rejecting testimony and there are no outstanding issues on which further proceedings in the administrative court would be useful. Under these circumstances, if a claimant’s testimony is credited as true, an award of benefits may be appropriate. Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2014). The panel held that the district court erred in its application of the three-step credit-as-true rule, outlined in Varney v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 859 F.2d 1396, 1400-01 (9th Cir. 1988), because contrary to the district court’s order, the Varney rule did not require the court to remand for an immediate award of benefits when the three Varney rule conditions were met. LEON V. BERRYHILL 3 The panel held that the ALJ in this case failed to consider evidence related to claimant’s claim of fatigue properly. The panel further held that the rare circumstances that result in a direct award of benefits on review were not present in this case. The panel held that on remand the district court should specify the scope of its remand. The panel remanded on an open record because there was serious doubt as to whether claimant was in fact disabled given that the district court upheld the ALJ’s other findings. In addition, the panel directed that on remand claimant shall be permitted to cross- examine the Commissioner’s medical consultants, but only to the extent such cross-examination concerned the issue of claimant’s fatigue.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 25, 2018.
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.