Melton v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv03044 - Document 20 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 14 ) AND REMANDING FOR ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS and denying ECF No. 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. File closed. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (PH, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1; Lester, 81 F.3d at 834. “General findings are 27 insufficient: rather, the ALJ must identify what testimony is not credible and what 28 ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 13 1 evidence undermines the claimant’s complaints.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 834; Dodrill v. 2 Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 The ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could 4 reasonably be expected to cause his alleged symptoms; however, Plaintiff’s 5 statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those 6 symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence of 7 record. Tr. 26. The ALJ listed the following reasons for finding Plaintiff’s 8 subjective complaints not persuasive in this case: (1) Plaintiff’s allegations of 9 disabling limitations were inconsistent with the conservative nature of treatment; 10 (2) the objective medical evidence did not support the level of impairment claimed; 11 and (3) Plaintiff’s variable control of his physical conditions was largely due to his 12 noncompliance with treatment recommendations. Tr. 23-24, 26. 13 While some of the reasons provided by the ALJ for discounting Plaintiff’s 14 testimony may be supported by the evidence of record, this matter must be 15 remanded for additional proceedings to remedy defects in light of the ALJ’s 16 erroneous determination regarding the medical opinion evidence of record. See 17 supra. Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ shall also reconsider Plaintiff’s 18 statements and testimony and reassess what statements, if any, are not credible and, 19 if deemed not credible, what specific evidence undermines those statements. 20 21 CONCLUSION Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s decision should be reversed and remanded for the 22 payment of benefits. The Court has the discretion to remand the case for additional 23 evidence and findings or to award benefits. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1292. The Court 24 may award benefits if the record is fully developed and further administrative 25 proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Id. Remand is appropriate when 26 additional administrative proceedings could remedy defects. Rodriguez v. Bowen, 27 876 F.2d 759, 763 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, the Court finds that further 28 development is necessary for a proper determination to be made. ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 14 The ALJ’s RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence in 1 2 this case and must be reevaluated. On remand, the ALJ shall reassess the opinions 3 of Drs. Crank, Omeozulu, and Ulleland, and all other medical evidence of record 4 relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits. The ALJ shall reevaluate 5 Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, formulate a new RFC determination, obtain 6 supplemental testimony from a vocational expert, if necessary, and take into 7 consideration any other evidence or testimony relevant to Plaintiff’s disability 8 claim. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED IN PART. 2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, is DENIED. 3. The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings consistent with this Order. 16 4. An application for attorney fees may be filed by separate motion. 17 The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide a copy 18 to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and 19 the file shall be CLOSED. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED February 1, 2019. 22 23 24 _____________________________________ JOHN T. RODGERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION . . . - 15
]]>
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.
