Hinger v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2018cv05097 - Document 18 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 12 AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 16 - Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (VR, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hinger v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 18 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 May 03, 2019 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 GUY H.,1 No. Plaintiff, 9 10 v. 11 12 4:18-CV-5097-EFS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court, without oral argument, are cross summary-judgment 17 motions.2 Plaintiff Guy H. appeals the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of 18 benefits.3 Plaintiff contends the ALJ: (1) improperly rejected the opinions of 19 Plaintiff’s medical providers; (2) improperly rejected Plaintiff’s subjective 20 complaints; (3) failed to conduct a proper step four analysis; and (5) failed to meet 21 her burden at step five.4 The Court has reviewed the administrative record and the 22 parties’ briefing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s 23 24 1 25 26 2 3 27 4 To protect the privacy of social-security plaintiffs, the Court refers to them by first name and last initial. See LCivR 5.2(c). When quoting the Administrative Record in this order, the Court will substitute “Plaintiff” for any other identifier that was used. ECF Nos. 12 & 16. See generally ECF No. 12. Id. at 6. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Summary Judgment Motion and remands this case to the ALJ for a decision 2 consistent with this Order. I. 3 Standard of Review 4 On review, the Court must uphold the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is 5 not disabled if the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and there is substantial 6 evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision.5 Substantial evidence 7 means more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. 6 It means such 8 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 9 conclusion.7 The Court will also uphold the ALJ’s reasonable inferences and 10 conclusions drawn from the record.8 11 In reviewing a denial of benefits, the Court considers the record as a whole, 12 not just the evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision.9 That said, the Court may not 13 substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner.10 If the evidence supports more 14 than one rational interpretation, a reviewing court must uphold the ALJ’s decision.11 15 Further, the Court “may not reverse an ALJ’s decision on account of an error that is 16 harmless.”12 An error is harmless “where it is inconsequential to the [ALJ’s] ultimate 17 nondisability determination.”13 The burden of showing that an error is harmful 18 normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination.14 19 20 21 5 22 6 23 7 8 24 9 10 25 11 12 26 13 27 14 Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Stone v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 530, 531 (9th Cir.1985)). Id. at 1110–11 (citation omitted). Id. (quoting Valentine v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 690 (9th Cir.2009)). Id. (citing Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008)). Id.; See Weetman v. Sullivan, 877 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1989). Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). Id. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (citing Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1055–56 (9th Cir. 2006)). Id. at 1115 (citation omitted). Id. at 1111 citing (Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009)). 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 2 II. 1 Five-Step Disability Determination 2 The ALJ uses a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether 3 an adult claimant is disabled.15 The claimant has the initial burden of establishing 4 entitlement to disability benefits under steps one through four.16 At step five, 5 however, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant is not 6 entitled to benefits.17 7 Step one assesses whether the claimant is currently engaged in a substantial 8 gainful activity.18 If the claimant is, benefits will be denied.19 If not, the ALJ proceeds 9 to the second step.20 10 Step two assesses whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment, 11 or combination of impairments, which significantly limit the claimant’s physical or 12 mental ability to do basic work activities.21 If the claimant does not, the disability 13 claim is denied. 22 If the claimant does, the evaluation proceeds to the third step.23 14 Step three compares the claimant’s impairment to several recognized by the 15 Commissioner to be so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity.24 If the 16 impairment meets or equals one of the listed impairments, the claimant is 17 conclusively presumed to be disabled.25 If the impairment does not, the evaluation 18 proceeds to the fourth step.26 19 20 21 15 16 22 17 18 23 19 20 24 21 22 25 23 24 26 25 27 26 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2007). Id. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b). See id. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c). See id. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 404.1520(d), 416.920(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(d). See 404 Subpt. P App. 1. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 3 1 Step four assesses whether the impairment prevents the claimant from 2 performing work he or she has performed in the past by determining the claimant’s 3 residual functional capacity (RFC).27 If the claimant is able to perform his or her 4 previous work, the claimant is not disabled.28 If the claimant cannot perform this 5 work, the evaluation proceeds to the fifth step.29 6 Step five, the final step, assesses whether the claimant can perform other 7 work in the national economy in light of his or her age, education, and work 8 experience.30 The Commissioner has the burden to show (1) that the claimant can 9 perform other substantial gainful activity, and (2) that a “significant number of jobs 10 exist in the national economy” which the claimant can perform.31 If both of these 11 conditions are met, the disability claim is denied; if not, the claim is granted.32 III. 12 Facts, Procedural History, and the ALJ’s Findings 13 Plaintiff was born on October 6, 1965.33 He was 51 years old at the time of the 14 hearing. Plaintiff graduated high school and has worked as a facilities maintenance 15 supervisor.34 On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of 16 disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning on January 17 31, 2010.35 Plaintiff’s claims were initially denied and also denied upon 18 reconsideration.36 Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was held on 19 October 25, 2016.37 After the hearing, the ALJ held open the record for submission 20 21 22 27 28 23 29 30 24 31 32 25 33 34 26 35 36 27 37 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv). Id. See id. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497–98 (1984); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). Administrative Record (“AR”) AR 50. AR 51–52. AR 18. Id. Id. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 4 1 of additional records; Plaintiff submitted additional records in February 2017.38 On 2 March 20, 2017 the ALJ, Kimberly Boyce, rendered a decision denying Plaintiff’s 3 claim.39 At step one, the ALJ found Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful 4 5 activity since the alleged onset date.40 6 At step two, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the following severe impairments: 7 degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, hypertension, and obesity.41 8 The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s depression/mood disorder was not severe.42 At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not have an impairment that 9 10 met the severity of a listed impairment.43 11 At step four, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has the residual functioning capacity 12 (RFC) to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), except that he 13 can occasionally climb, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl.44 The ALJ also found 14 that he can occasionally stoop, kneel, and crouch.45 He could perform work in which 15 concentrated exposure to vibration was not present and did not require operation of 16 a motor vehicle.46 17 When determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s medically 18 determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged 19 symptoms, however, his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and 20 limiting effects of the symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical 21 22 23 38 39 24 40 41 25 42 43 26 44 45 27 46 Id. AR 18–31. AR 20. Id. Id. AR 22–23. AR 23. Id. Id. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 5 1 evidence and other evidence in the record.47 The ALJ assigned great weight to the 2 determination of the state agency doctor who reviewed Plaintiff’s claim during 3 reconsideration, Dr. Robert Hoskins.48 The ALJ gave no weight to the state agency 4 doctor who reviewed Plaintiff’s claim during the initial phase of review, Dr. Norman 5 Staley.49 The ALJ partial weight to Dr. Wing Chau, with significant weight to the 6 findings on examination and no weight to the severity of limitations finding.50 7 Finally, the ALJ assigned little weight to Dr. James Opara’s February 2014 8 opinion.51 At step five, the ALJ found that Plaintiff is able to perform past relevant work 9 10 as a supervisor.52 Alternatively, the ALJ found that there are jobs in the national 11 economy that plaintiff can perform, considering his age, education, work experience, 12 and RFC.53 13 The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review,54 making the ALJ’s 14 decision the final decision for purposes of judicial review.55 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit 15 on June 6, 2018.56 IV. 16 Applicable Law & Analysis 17 The ALJ improperly evaluated the opinions of Dr. Hoskins, Dr. Staley, and 18 Dr. Chau. These errors were not harmless and the Court therefore remands for 19 reevaluation. The ALJ properly disregarded Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. In light 20 of the ALJ’s errors regarding Plaintiff’s medical providers, the ALJ should reassess 21 22 47 23 48 49 24 50 51 25 52 53 26 54 55 27 56 AR 24. AR 27. AR 27 n.2. AR 27–28. AR 28. AR 29. AR 29–31. AR 1–6. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1481, 422.210. ECF No. 1. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 6 1 step four and may need to reevaluate step five. Therefore, the Court need not address 2 Plaintiff’s specific claims of error regarding the ALJ’s steps four and five analyses. 3 A. The ALJ improperly weighed the opinion of Dr. Robert Hoskins. 4 First, the ALJ incorrectly stated that Dr. Hoskins had concluded Plaintiff could 5 perform light work with postural limitations.57 Dr. Hoskins was the state agency 6 doctor who reviewed Plaintiff’s claim on reconsideration.58 Dr. Hoskins did not opine 7 that Plaintiff could perform light work—he actually concluded Plaintiff is limited to 8 sedentary work.59 The ALJ gave this incorrect interpretation “great weight.”60 The significance of the ALJ’s error manifests in the application of the SSA’s 9 10 Medical–Vocational Guidelines (the “Grid”). The Commissioner, through the ALJ, 11 may meet its burden of proving that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national 12 economy through proper reference to the Grid rules.61 The Grid rules provide 13 separate numbered tables for the sedentary, light and medium levels of work, and 14 separate rules for the heavy and very heavy levels.62 If the claimant has sedentary, 15 light or medium exertional capacity, the ALJ must first determine which Grid table 16 to use.63 Next, based on the claimant’s age, education and previous work experience, 17 rules within the Grid table direct a finding of “disabled” or “not disabled.”64 The ALJ 18 must consider the claimant’s RFC, age, education, and work experience in 19 conjunction with the Grid rules.65 20 This error is not harmless because the ALJ may have reached different 21 conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s disability if the ALJ had applied the Grid rules for 22 23 57 58 24 59 60 25 61 62 26 63 64 27 65 See AR 27. AR 92. AR 103. AR 27. Kail v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1496, 1497–98 (1984); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. Id. Id. Id. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 7 1 sedentary instead of light capacity work. Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had at 2 least a high school education and speaks English.66 For a claimant capable of light 3 work, the Grid rules direct a finding of “not disabled” when the claimant’s age falls 4 between the ages of 50 and 54, and he has at least a high school education, regardless 5 of the possibility of direct entry into skilled work and the transferability of her 6 previous job skills.67 In contrast, for a claimant with the maximum sustained work 7 capability of sedentary work, the Grid rules direct a finding of “disabled” when his 8 age falls between the ages of 50 and 54, and he has at least a high school education, 9 provided that his education does not provide for direct entry to skilled work and he 10 has no transferrable job skills.68 The ALJ did not make any findings regarding 11 Plaintiff’s transferability of job skills because it was immaterial to his disability 12 determination, when applying the Grid rules for light work capability.69 If upon 13 reevaluation of Dr. Hoskins’ opinion the ALJ determines that Plaintiff should be 14 limited to sedentary work, the ALJ will need to make findings as to Plaintiff’s 15 transferability of job skills and reevaluate him using the Grid rules for sedentary 16 work. 17 B. The ALJ improperly weighed the opinion of Dr. Norman Staley. 18 Plaintiff points out an apparent conflict in the ALJ’s determination that 19 Dr. Staley’s opinion should be disregarded because subsequent evidence indicated 20 that Plaintiff was “more limited” than initially thought.70 Dr. Staley was the state 21 agency doctor who reviewed Plaintiff’s claim at the initial review stage.71 In a 22 23 24 66 25 67 26 69 68 70 27 71 AR 30. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Rules 202.13–15. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2, Rules 201.12, 201.16. AR 30 (“Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability . . . .”). AR 27 n.2. AR 78. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 8 1 footnote while discussing Dr. Hoskin’s opinion, which was subsequent to Dr. Staley’s 2 opinion, the ALJ stated: I give no weight to the initial determination by [Dr. Staley] because medical evidence received in the course of developing this case for review justifies a conclusion that claimant’s impairments were more limiting than initially concluded by [Dr. Staley] (Social Security Ruling 96-6p).72 3 4 5 Dr. Staley opined stated that Plaintiff can stand and/or walk for 2 hours and, as 6 stated, limited Plaintiff to sedentary work.73 Subsequently, Dr. Hoskins opined that 7 Plaintiff can stand and/or walk for 6 hours in an 8-hour work day and limited 8 Plaintiff to sedentary work.74 Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusion that subsequent 9 evidence indicated that Plaintiff was more limited conflicts with the record. 10 Dr. Hoskins’ subsequent opinion seems to contend that Plaintiff was less limited 11 than Dr. Staley had previously opined—Dr. Hoskins believed that Plaintiff could 12 stand and/or walk for 6 hours instead of 2 hours.75 Further, the ALJ’s conclusion that 13 Plaintiff was more limited than initially thought conflicts with the ALJ’s RFC 14 determination. The ALJ ultimately concluded that Plaintiff was less limited that Dr. 15 Staley opined—specifically, she determined that Plaintiff could do “light work,” 16 while Dr. Staley opined that Plaintiff was limited to “sedentary work.”76 17 The Commissioner admits the ALJ likely “made a scrivener’s error” because 18 “later medical evidence showed that [Plaintiff’s] impairments were ‘more’ limiting 19 than Dr. Staley found.”77 Therefore, the Commissioner contends, the ALJ must have 20 meant Plaintiff’s impairments were “less limiting than Dr. Staley found.”78 However, 21 the Court has a limited scope of review of the final agency decision. Where there is 22 23 72 24 73 74 25 75 76 26 77 27 78 AR 27 n.2. AR 85, 89. AR 100, 103. AR 85, 100. As stated, supra, the ALJ likely concluded that Plaintiff could perform “light work” based on an incorrect interpretation of Dr. Hoskins report. ECF No. 16 at 11. Id. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 9 1 conflicting evidence in the record, it is the province of the ALJ to resolve the 2 inconsistencies, leaving the court to review whether the ALJ’s determination is 3 supported by substantial evidence.79 Upon remand, the ALJ should resolve this 4 inconsistency or provide further explanation. 5 C. The ALJ improperly weighed the opinion of Dr. Wing Chau. 6 Dr. Chau, an examining physician,80 conducted a one-time disability 7 impairment evaluation of Plaintiff in February 2014.81 The ALJ partial weight to Dr. 8 Wing Chau, with significant weight to the findings on examination and no weight to 9 the limitations finding.82 Dr. Chau’s noted the following limitations: Plaintiff would 10 not be able to tolerate prolonged sitting, standing, or walking and his twisting 11 activities would be limited.83 The opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, 12 13 can only be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by 14 substantial evidence in the record.84 The ALJ meets this burden by providing a 15 detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating 16 his interpretation thereof, and making findings.85 17 The ALJ failed to provide “specific and legitimate reasons” to support her 18 dismissal of Dr. Chau’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s limitations. The ALJ simply 19 stated that Dr. Chau’s findings regarding the exertional limitations were “out of 20 proportion to the other medical evidence and the claimant’s activities of daily 21 living.”86 The ALJ did not identify any specific inconsistencies or point to any specific 22 23 79 80 24 81 25 82 83 26 84 85 27 86 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2008). See Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the treating physician was entitled to more weight than a one-time examining physician). AR 344–46. AR 27–28. AR 346. Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). AR 28. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 10 1 records. A plain assertion that the treating physician’s opinion is contradicted 2 generally by other records and Plaintiff’s activities does not constitute “specific and 3 legitimate reasons.”87 Further, the ALJ may wish to re-weigh the evidence after re- 4 evaluating Dr. Hoskins and Dr. Staley’s opinions. This is particularly true because 5 the “other medical evidence” the ALJ refers to seems to be the ALJ’s erroneous 6 interpretation of Dr. Hoskin’s report—as it was the only report that the ALJ gave 7 great weight to in full.88 The Court therefore remands for the reevaluation of 8 Dr. Chau’s opinion. 9 D. The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. 10 To discredit a claimant’s testimony when a medical impairment has been 11 established, the ALJ must provide “specific, cogent reasons for the disbelief.”89 The 12 ALJ must cite the reasons why Plaintiff’s testimony is unpersuasive.90 Where, as 13 here, the ALJ did not find affirmative evidence that Plaintiff was a malingerer, those 14 reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony must be clear and convincing.”91 15 The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s testimony because Plaintiff stopped 16 working for a reason other than his alleged disability and continued to receive 17 unemployment benefits.92 When a claimant stops working for reasons other than 18 19 87 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 89 26 90 91 27 92 The Ninth Circuit in Embry v. Bowen concluded that the ALJ failed to meet the burden to provide specific legitimate reasons for rejecting a treating physicians opinion where the ALJ summarily stated: The opinions of total disability tended [sic] in the record are unsupported by sufficient objective findings and contrary to the preponderant conclusions mandated by those objective findings. The duration of the claimant’s stress treadmill testings and relative lack of positive findings, the results of other laboratory and x-ray testing, the objective observations of the physicians of record, all preponderate toward a finding that the claimant has never lost the residual functional capacity for light work for any period approaching 12 months. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421–22 (9th Cir. 1988). See AR 27–28. Morgan v. Commissioner, 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). See id. Id. AR 26. 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 11 1 disability, the ALJ may draw an adverse inference as to the credibility of her 2 disability claim.93 Further, continued receipt of unemployment benefits casts doubt 3 on a claim of disability, as it shows that an applicant holds himself out as capable of 4 working.94 Plaintiff held himself out as able to work; he testified that he went to a 5 “all of the job training” and continued to actively look for work while receiving 6 benefits and himself believed that he was capable to work during that time.95 7 Because these reasons are sufficient to disregard Plaintiff’s subjective 8 testimony, the Court need not assess Plaintiff’s remaining specific assignments of 9 error related to the ALJ’s credibility determination. 10 E. The ALJ should reassess the step four RFC analysis. 11 As explained above, the ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of Dr. Chau, 12 Staley, and Hoskins, and consequently, her RFC findings may not be an accurate 13 assessment of Plaintiff’s limitations. In light of the court’s instructions above, the 14 ALJ should reassess at step four. Therefore, the Court need not address Plaintiff’s 15 specific assignments of error related to the ALJ’s step four analysis. 16 F. 17 The ALJ may need to reassess the hypotheticals posed to the vocational expert at step five. 18 A hypothetical question posed to a vocational expert “must include all of the 19 claimant’s functional limitations, both physical and mental supported by the 20 record.”96 If the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert is not adequate, then the 21 expert’s testimony has no evidentiary value to support a finding that the claimant 22 23 93 24 25 26 94 95 27 96 See Brutton v. Massanari, 268 F.3d 824, 828 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination based, in part, on the claimant’s admission that he left his job due to a lay-off, rather than because he was injured). See also Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1163 (9th Cir. 2014) (An ALJ may consider a plaintiff's inconsistent statements concerning his symptoms, as well as other testimony that “appears less than candid” when considering his subjective symptom testimony). Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1165. AR 53–57. Thomas v. Barnhard, 278 F.3d 947, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 12 1 can perform the identified jobs.97 In light of the Court’s instructions above, the ALJ 2 may need to reassess the hypotheticals posed to the vocational expert. V. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Having reviewed the record and the ALJ’s findings, the Court concludes that 5 there are unresolved issues, the record does not clearly require a finding of disability, 6 and that remand is necessary. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED. 9 2. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, is DENIED. 10 3. 11 This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for 12 further proceedings consistent with this decision and sentence four of 13 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 14 4. The Clerk’s Office shall enter JUDGMENT for Plaintiff. 15 5. The file shall be CLOSED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 17 provide copies to all counsel. DATED this 2nd day of May 2019. 18 19 20 s/Edward F. Shea 21 EDWARD F. SHEA 22 Senior United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 97 Matthews v. Shalala, 10 F.3d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1993). 28 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF- 13
]]>
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.
