Armando Haros Jr v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 2:2015cv06471 - Document 20 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi: IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. (mt)

Download PDF
Armando Haros Jr v. Carolyn W. Colvin Doc. 20 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ARMANDO HAROS, JR., Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. LA CV 15-6471 JCG MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Armando Haros, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s 19 decision denying his application for disability benefits. Plaintiff contends that the 20 Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly assessed (1) the medical evidence, 21 (2) Plaintiff’s credibility, and (3) Plaintiff’s wife’s testimony. (See Joint Stip. at 3-17, 22 19-30.) The Commissioner concedes error on each of these issues. (Id. at 17-19, 25- 23 26, 29.) The Court agrees with the parties that the ALJ’s decision is defective. The 24 only remaining issue is the form of remand. (Id. at 30-32.) 25 With error established, this Court has discretion to remand or reverse and award 26 benefits. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). Where no useful 27 purpose would be served by further proceedings, or where the record has been fully 28 developed, it is appropriate to direct an immediate award of benefits. Benecke v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). But where outstanding issues must be 2 resolved before a determination can be made, or where the record does not make clear 3 that proper evaluation of the evidence would require a disability finding, remand is 4 appropriate. Id. at 594. 5 The Court is mindful that “the touchstone for an award of benefits is the 6 existence of a disability, not the agency’s legal error.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 7 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2015). Because it is unclear, on this record, whether Plaintiff 8 was in fact disabled during the relevant period, remand here is on an “open record.” 9 Id.; Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141-42 (9th Cir. 2014). Given the necessity of 10 remand, the parties may freely take up all issues raised in the Joint Stipulation, and any 11 other issues relevant to resolving Plaintiff’s claim of disability, before the ALJ. 12 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT judgment shall be entered 13 REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits and REMANDING 14 the matter for further administrative action consistent with this decision. 15 16 17 18 19 DATED: August 23, 2016 ________________________________________ Hon. Jay C. Gandhi United States Magistrate Judge *** 20 21 22 23 This Memorandum Opinion and Order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included or submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. *** 24 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.